The Israel Koschitzky
Virtual Beit MidrashThe Israel Koschitzky
Virtual Beit Midrash
Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat
Har Etzion
PARASHAT
BEHAR
Rav David
Silverberg
The Torah in Parashat Behar introduces the obligation to support a fellow
Jew who has come upon financial hardship: "Should your brother become
impoverished and his position becomes unstable with you you shall support
him
so that your brother shall live with you" (25:35). The Midrash (Vayikra Rabba 34:1) comments that this verse reflects the
same notion expressed by King David in a verse in Sefer Tehillim (41:2):
"Ashrei maskil el dal" "Fortunate is he who is thoughtful of
the wretched."
Rav Simcha Bunim Sofer, in his work Shevet Sofer, explains that the Midrash here alludes to
a homiletical reading of the phrase "his position becomes unstable with you"
("u-mata yado imakh") in this verse. Whereas according to straightforward
reading this clause continues the description of the impoverished man's plight,
the Midrashic reading interprets it as an instruction to others. Namely, when "your brother becomes
impoverished," one's first response must be to look upon him as "unstable with
you" to fully identify and commiserate with his suffering. One must not merely feel compassion as
an outsider, but rather sense that he, too, undergoes the same kind of hardship
and humiliation as his destitute kinsman.
This feeling with then naturally lead one to the subsequent clause in
this verse: "ve-hechezakta
bo" "you shall support
him." Once a person truly feels the
pain of his underprivileged fellow, he will automatically be driven to lend
much-needed assistance and support.
It is in this sense, the Shevet Sofer explains, that this verse expresses the
same theme as the verse, "Fortunate is he who is thoughtful of the
wretched." There David speaks of a
person who is "maskil el
dal," who truly understands the
plight of the poor man. He does not
simply acknowledge the condition of poverty, but rather identifies with the poor
man's suffering in a very real and tangible way. The concept of "maskil el dal" is
thus one and the same with the notion of "u-mata yado imakh," the ability of the privileged members of
society to clearly understand and sincerely empathize with the hardship and
suffering of their fellow Jews in distress.
The Shevet Sofer cites in this context the adage recorded in Masekhet Berakhot (6b), "Iggera de-ta'anita tzidkata" "The reward for a fast day is [through] charity." Rashi explains this to mean that the primary reward earned by the observance of a fast day results from the charity given to the poor to enable them to eat a substantive meal after the fast. The Shevet Sofer, however, suggests a different reading. The observance of a fast day allows a wealthy man to experience at least for a day the feeling of poverty, the sensation of hunger and deprivation. This experience is intended (at least in part) to inspire a person to give more generously to those in need. Now that he has felt the pain and despair of hunger, he will empathize more fully with the suffering of the poor and be more willing to share his material benefits with them.
********
Yesterday, we discussed the Torah's admonition in Parashat Behar, "Should your brother become impoverished and
his position becomes unstable with you you shall support him
so that your
brother shall live with you" (25:35).
As we saw, the Midrash (Vayikra Rabba 34:1) associates this verse with King
David's exclamation in Sefer Tehillim (41:2): "Ashrei maskil el dal" "Fortunate is he who is thoughtful of
the wretched."
After drawing this association between these two verses, the Midrash
proceeds to cite a comment by Isi ben Yehuda concerning the aforementioned verse
from Tehillim: "Fortunate is he who is thoughtful of the wretched this refers
to someone who gives a coin to a poor man." Many writers raised the question of how
a person expresses "thoughtfulness" and empathy with the poor by donating "a
coin" to charity. Rarely, if ever,
does one alleviate the hardship of poverty by giving a single coin. Why, then, does Isi ben Yehuda interpret
the clause "Fortunate is he who is thoughtful of the wretched" as a reference to
a one-coin donation to charity?
One answer, perhaps, is that Isi ben Yehuda understood this verse as
referring to a person who simply cannot afford a more substantial gift to the
poor. Here in Parashat Behar the
Torah instructs one to "support" his kinsman in need "so that your brother shall
live with you." Quite obviously,
not every Jew enjoys the financial means to "support" the impoverished person
and bring him from the abyss of destitution to a life of dignity and
stability. One might have thus
concluded that unless he can provide a comprehensive, long-term solution to the
poor man's plight, he is under no obligation to offer assistance. King David thus lauds the "maskil el dal," the one who is wise enough to understand
the significance of even modest sums in alleviating the plight of those in
need. Someone who "gives a coin to
a poor man," who does his small share in supporting the poor, is worthy of
admiration even if he cannot reasonably afford a more substantive
contribution.
******
In Parashat Behar the Torah presents the mitzva of yovel, or the "jubilee," which requires the
return of purchased lands every fifty years. In addition, the onset of yovel requires people to release their indentured
servants, and to abstain from all agricultural activity.
The commentators take different approaches in identifying the precise meaning of the term "yovel" in this context. Rashi (25:10) claims that its usage here corresponds to the use of the same term earlier in the Torah (Shemot 19:13) to mean a shofar. According to this view, the jubilee year is called "yovel" because of the sounding of the shofar which takes place on Yom Kippur when the jubilee begins (25:9).
Ibn Ezra and the Ramban, however, disagree, and contend that the term yovel refers to the obligation to release indentured servants. They associate this word with the Hebrew word for "lead" ("le-hovil"), bringing somebody to a certain place. "Yovel" in this context thus refers to the masters' leading their servants into freedom. The Ramban, towards the end of his discussion, adds that the term yovel perhaps relates to the word yuval, which appears in reference to water sources to where nearby plants cast their roots (such as in Yirmiyahu 17:8).
Rav Yosef Shaul Nathanson, in his Divrei Shaul (mahadura telita'a), draws proof for the latter view from the Gemara. In Masekhet Rosh Hashanah (9b), the Gemara records Rabbi Yossi's ruling that the agricultural laws of yovel apply even if, for whatever reason, masters refused to release their servants. In Rabbi Yossi's view, the release of servants though obligatory is not indispensable for the yovel status with respect to the prohibition against agricultural activity. This prohibition will take effect even if the servants are unlawfully held by their masters. However, Rabbi Yossi adds, the agricultural laws do not take effect if the Beit Din (court) does not sound the shofar as required by the Torah. Rabbi Yossi arrives at this ruling on the basis of a verse which indicates that under certain circumstances the yovel will take effect even when some of the procedures are not followed, and in other cases it will not take effect. The Gemara initially questions why Rabbi Yossi assumed that the yovel would take effect if the servants are not released, but would not take effect if the shofar is not sounded. The Gemara responds by suggesting two rationales for this assumption, including the fact that the shofar-blowing is assigned to the Beit Din, rather to all individuals, and thus carries more weight. Rabbi Yossi thus concluded that only the shofar-blowing constitutes an indispensable prerequisite for the jubilee status with respect to the agricultural restrictions.
The Divrei Shaul notes that Rabbi Yossi's ruling could have been explained far more simply, on the basis of the fact that the Torah speaks of the jubilee year with the term yovel. If, as Rashi claimed, this term refers to the sounding of the shofar, then seemingly the Torah viewed this ritual as a fundamental aspect of the yovel observance. That the Gemara did not suggest such an explanation might prove that it accepted the Ramban and Ibn Ezra's approach, that this term refers to the release of indentured servants. The Gemara was therefore led to ask why Rabbi Yossi afforded more weight to the shofar-blowing than to the release of servants as a prerequisite for the agricultural restrictions of yovel.
******
Towards the end of Parashat Behar the Torah addresses the case of a person who became impoverished and as a result sold himself as a servant to a gentile master. The Torah establishes regarding such an individual, "After he is sold, he shall be granted redemption; one of his kinsmen shall redeem him " (25:48).
The Gemara in Masekhet Kiddushin (20b) comments that the Torah here emphasizes that the servant's relatives must work towards redeeming him from servitude even though he bears some responsibility for his predicament: "Perhaps since he went ahead and became a minister for idolatry, let the stone be thrown after the fallen man? The verse therefore states, 'He shall be granted redemption'." Despite the fact that the servant acted wrongly by selling himself into the service of an idolater, which amounts to "becoming a minister for idolatry," his family nevertheless bears the obligation to free him from his current condition as swiftly as possible. They must not allow him to continue falling away from the Jewish community and Jewish life.
Rav Yehuda Leib Ginsburg, in his Yalkut Yehuda, comments that the Torah here urges
sensitivity to the plight of the impoverished individual that led him to such a
drastic measure. Financial hardship
often leads a person to desperation, which in turn results in rash and severe
conduct. Thus, while this servant
certainly bears a degree of guilt for his current condition, his guilt is
mitigated somewhat by the dire straits that clouded his reasoning. The Torah therefore instructs the family
to deal kindly and sensitively towards the servant and redeem him from the
gentile master as quickly as possible.
This halakha should perhaps remind us that although we
must be strict and exacting in our self-assessment, rather than soothe our
conscience with convenient excuses for our shortcomings, we must look upon
others forgivingly. More often than
not, a close examination will reveal numerous factors that mitigate a person's
guilt; the context of a person's wrongdoing many times sheds new light on the
incident and lessens its severity.
In our dealings with other people, we must remember that even when a
person errs, "He shall be granted redemption," he deserves a second chance. It is likely that he bears less guilt
that it may at first appear, and this itself should provide sufficient reason to
treat him with understanding and sensitivity, as opposed to the strict and
uncompromising standards which we ought to apply to
ourselves.
******
Parashat Behar begins by presenting the mitzva of shemita, the mandatory cessation of agricultural
work in Eretz Yisrael every seventh year. The Torah first introduces this
obligation by describing the sabbatical year as a shabbat le-Hashem "a sabbath to the Lord" (25:2). Four verses later (25:6), the Torah
writes, "The sabbath of the land shall be for you, for consumption
." Meaning, the produce that grows during
this "sabbath" is given to Benei
Yisrael for
consumption.
The Panim Yafot explains this to mean that during the
shemita year, which is observed as "a sabbath to
the Lord," God reclaims ownership over the land, as it were, and then allows us
to partake of the fruit. We eat the
produce not as owners, but rather as "visitors" whom God has invited to enjoy
the yield of His land. The
Panim Yafot draws an analogy to the case of gezel ha-ger, where a thief stole money from a convert
who has no halakhic relatives and the victim died, leaving no heirs. When the thief repents and wishes to
return the stolen goods, the Torah writes, "the restitution made to the Lord
shall go to the kohen" (Bamidbar 5:8). The payment is essentially owed to the
Almighty, but God then allows the kohen to keep the funds.
In truth, we may compare the shemita produce in this regard to all kodashim sacrificial meat and the like, part of which is given to the kohanim for consumption. The animal is essentially offered to God, but God invites the kohanim, the servants who officiate in His Mikdash, to join in partaking of the meat. Similarly, during shemita all produce in the Land of Israel belongs to God, who graciously invites His nation, His "kingdom of kohanim" (Shemot 19:6) who serve Him in His land, to partake of His food.
Indeed, the laws of shemita bear some resemblance to the
halakhot governing kodashim.
For example, Halakha forbids destroying sacrificial meat, just
as shemita produce must be eaten and not wasted. It is forbidden to take shemita produce outside the
From this perspective, the laws of shemita serve to remind
us that Eretz Yisrael is to be seen as a Mikdash, a place of
sanctity where we must fully devote ourselves to the service of the
Almighty. While the particular laws
of the
******
The Torah in Parashat Behar presents the obligation to support one's fellow Jew experiencing financial hardship, and in this context forbids taking interest on loans: "Do not take from him advanced or accrued interest, and you shall fear your God, and your fellow shall live with you" (25:36).
How might we explain the meaning and significance of this verse's concluding phrase, "and your fellow shall live with you"? What concept relevant to the prohibition against taking interest does the Torah seek to convey with these words?
The Gemara in Masekhet Bava Metzia (62a) infers from this phrase that a lender who accepted interest from a borrower must return the interest. The Torah adds these words to instruct that not only may a lender not accept interest, but if he did take interest, his fellow "shall live with you," meaning, he must be assisted through the return of the funds that were unlawfully accepted.
The Ramban, both in his commentary to this verse as well as in his critique of the Rambam's Sefer Ha-mitzvot (in his hosafot after Sefer Ha-mitzvot, 16), claims that the Torah here establishes the obligation of piku'ach nefesh to save one's fellow's life. The phrase, "your fellow shall live with you" introduces an affirmative command to work towards rescuing a fellow Jew's life should it be in danger. This mitzva applies to all life-threatening situations, such as illness, a person drowning at sea, and a person who cannot afford enough food to survive.
We might perhaps add another explanation of this phrase, namely, that it provides the conceptual basis for the prohibition against usury. When a close friend or family member comes upon hard times, it is natural for one to offer unconditional assistance out of genuine love and concern, without anticipating anything in return. An indifferent third party, however, will seek to capitalize on the poor man's hardships and offer assistance only if it will benefit himself, as well. Lending to one's fellow in need tests the degree of kinship the lender feels towards the borrower. If he sincerely wishes to offer assistance and support, then he will lend freely without demanding anything in return. But if the lender feels no sense of connection with the needy borrower, he will exploit his condition of poverty by offering a "mutually beneficial" loan: he gives the borrower the money he needs for his immediate survival, and in return he will receive a percentage of the loan as interest.
The Torah therefore adds in the context of this prohibition, "your fellow
shall live with you," or, more accurately, "your brother [achikha] shall live with you." The basis of the prohibition against
interest is the sense of achva, fraternity, that must be felt towards all
other members of the nation. A
fellow Jew's suffering must be seen as a personal need, a problem that demands
one's attention as though it directly affects him or a member of his immediate
family. Demanding interest reflects
a certain distance between the lender and borrower, as the lender approaches the
borrower's condition as an opportunity for profitable gain rather than a
personal issue that he must unconditionally work to resolve. The Torah bids us to express kinship and
love towards all members of Kelal
Yisrael, as expressed by offering
them assistance and meeting their needs unconditionally, without expecting
anything in return.
******
As discussed earlier this week, the Torah in Parashat Behar addresses the situation of a Jew whose financial hardships compelled him to sell himself as a servant to a gentile master. The Torah instructs the servant's family members to redeem him from servitude as quickly as possible, and establishes that the "redemption" payment is determined based on the yovel (jubilee year). The gentile master (assuming he lives under Benei Yisrael's authority) must release the servant upon the onset of the yovel, and thus if the family redeems the servant before the yovel, the sum of their payment will depend on the number of years remaining until the jubilee (25:50-52).
In this context, the Torah also commands, "lo yirdenu be-ferekh le-einekha" "he shall not impose harsh labor upon him before your eyes" (25:53). Before the servant's family is capable of redeeming him, the nation bears the responsibility to ensure that he does not suffer at the hands of his gentile master. If they see the master mistreating or overburdening the servant, they must intervene to rescue their fellow Jew from torment.
Chazal, in Torat Kohanim, note the seemingly unnecessary word le-einekha "before your eyes" in this verse. The Sages explain that the Torah commands Benei Yisrael to intervene only if they indeed witness or otherwise become aware of the gentile's mistreatment of the Hebrew servant. The people are not required to pay regular visits to the gentile's home to ensure that the servant receives proper treatment; they must act to save the servant only if they determine that he indeed suffers mistreatment. (Of course, we may assume that if there is reason to suspect the gentile of cruelty, such as if he has a past history of abusive behavior, then the people should actively monitor the situation from the outset to ensure the servant's safety.)
Rav Yehuda Leib Ginsburg, in his Yalkut Yehuda, comments that the principle underlying this halakha can be applied to all areas involving interpersonal relationships: "We should not be searching for flaws in our fellow's home even in the home of a gentile; only if we see him acting improperly do we then approach him " While we must certainly stand guard against dangerous people, we must not treat everybody with a de facto attitude of suspicion. One should not be searching through other people's lives in search of mistakes or flaws. Even in the situation of a non-Jewish master, who feels no kinship with the Hebrew servant and might therefore be more likely to mistreat him, the Torah advises against excessive supervision. All the more so, then, in relating to each other we must avoid baseless suspicion and mistrust, and give one another the benefit of the doubt until we have a valid reason to do otherwise.