Vol 32.25 - Behar 2                                  Spanish French Audio  Video

Page 161   Page162   Page163   Page164   Page165   Page166   Page167  

Translation:

1. At the end of our Parsha, it speaks regarding the laws of a Hebrew slave (עבד עברי) that is sold to a Yisroel,

“And if your brother becomes destitute with you, and is sold to you”,

that there are many warnings:

• • “Do not work him with slave labor”
  • “As an employee or a (hired) resident, he shall be with you etc.”
  • “He shall leave you . . and he shall return to his family”.

After this comes the laws of a Hebrew slave that is sold to a foreigner (הנמכר לנכרי):

“If a resident non-Jew . . and your brother becomes destitute . . and is sold to a resident non-Jew among you or to an idol of the family of a non-Jew”.

(This refers to “one who is sold to the idol itself to be an attendant to it . . to chop wood and draw water etc.”)

that there are many specific laws in his redemption:

• “After he is sold, he shall have redemption” (So much so until)
• “And if he is not redeemed through (any of) these (ways), he shall go out in the Jubilee year etc.”.

In both of them, Scripture states the reason:

• “For they are My servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt”.
• “For the children of Israel are servants to Me; they are My servants, whom I took out of the land of Egypt etc.”.

This means that this aspect (“they are My servants”) is a reason, both for the laws of a Hebrew slave that is sold to a Yisroel, as well as the laws of a Yisroel that is sold to a non-Jew.

We find in Rashi’s commentary a repetition of this reason, for in both verses, he explains:

“They are My servants: My contract came before”.

Seemingly, however, according to the well-known maxim - that Rashi relies on what is written in his commentary beforehand, and especially since the two verses are close to each other – one must examine why Rashi repeats his explanation?

(Moreover: In Torat Kohanim (Rashi’s ostensive source) it just explains the first verse:

“They are My servants: My contract came before (applied to them first)”

Whereas in the second verse,

“For the children of Israel are servants to Me”, it does not explain again, “My contract came before”.

Indeed, we find in Torat Kohanim, which is an order of study according to Halacha and Derash (homily), many repetitions of homilies and studies. Yet regarding Rashi who states that, “I have come only to give the plain meaning of Scripture”, Rashi relies on what he previously explains, as mentioned many times).

Therefore, one must say that that the reason “My contract came before” regarding the laws of a Yisroel that is sold to a foreigner, is another aspect (and innovation) compared to the reason regarding the laws of a Yisroel that is sold to a Yisroel. Therefore, Rashi must repeat and inform us that, “My contract came before” is (also) a reason for the laws of a Yisroel that is sold to a foreigner.

2. Seemingly, one can explain this simply:

When one sells himself to a foreigner, where the “cause” of this is,

“His connection with him (the foreigner), because he learned from his deeds”.

So much so, that he sells himself to an actual foreigner (as aforementioned).

Therefore, there is a supposition to say that the stipulation, “My contract came before” has been removed (דפקע מיני) since he has subjugated himself completely to another (to a foreigner). Therefore, he is like the foreigner.

(This is similar to the supposition of the slave,

“Since my master has illicit relations, I will also be like him! Since my master worships idols, I will also be like him! Since my master desecrates the Shabbat, I will also be like him!”).

Therefore, we must be told that even regarding this slave, it states,

“My contract came before”

and all the laws of the Parsha apply to him.

That:

“He shall have redemption. . he shall go out in the Jubilee year etc.”

This is because, “My contract came before” and therefore he is included in:

“For the children of Israel are servants to Me; they are My servants”

(Like the continuation of the verse: “You shall not make idols for yourselves”, which is an independent warning, “addressed to the one who has been sold to a non-Jew, that he should not say, ‘Since my master has illicit relations’ etc.”, as aforementioned).

However, this explanation is not sufficient.

For this thing, that a Yisroel does not go out of the status of a Yisroel is known (at least, in general) from the Torah’s command,

“After he is sold, he shall have redemption”

As Rashi explains,

“He shall have redemption: immediately. Do not allow him to become assimilated until the Jubilee year”.

And also, from the following command:

“He shall be with him as an employee hired year by year; he shall not enslave him with rigor in your sight. And if he is not redeemed through (any of) these (ways), he shall go out in the Jubilee year etc.”.

The verse,

“For the children of Israel are servants to Me”

 is a reason for all these commands. In other words, he did not go out of the status of “the children of Israel are servants to Me”.

If so, after we know of these laws, that he is still a part of Bnei Yisroel and one must be careful in,

“Do not allow him to become assimilated (even just until the Jubilee year)”.

It is understood that when it states, “For the children of Israel are servants to Me” it means that “My contract came before” (and it does not require explanation).

3. One must also understand:

When it states (the first time):

“For they are My servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt”,

it is a preface to the conclusion of the verse:

“they shall not be sold as a slave is sold”.

As Rashi explains,

“They shall not be sold in the way a slave is sold: namely, by public announcement, saying: “Here is a slave for sale!” Neither may they stand him up on an auctioning block (for public sale)”

Rashi’s source, seemingly, is from Torat Kohanim. However there it states,

“’whom I took out of the land of Egypt’: on condition that they not be sold as slaves are sold. Alternatively, "they not be sold as slaves are sold": that they not be stood up in public and sold on the auction block”.

In other words, that according to the first explanation, in Torat Kohanim, when it states,

“They shall not be sold in the way a slave is sold”,

it is a general aspect that includes all the warnings in the Parsha – that all of it is included in “as a slave is sold”.

Only according to the second explanation, is stated the specific independent command regarding the manner of the sale.

It is not understood:

Why does Rashi chose the second explanation of Torat Kohanim and not the first explanation which is a general aspect?

On the contrary, specifically according to the first explanation, is the continuation of the verse,

“For they are My servants . .they shall not be sold as a slave is sold”

seemingly understood.

It is well and good if we say that, “they shall not be sold as a slave is sold” is a general aspect. For then the reason that specifically this verse states, “For they are My servants”, is understood

(whose explanation is “My contract came before”).

For this is the reason for all the commands of the Parsha (regarding the conduct toward a slave). Namely, that all of them are included in this command of “they shall not be sold as a slave is sold”.

However, if we say that “they shall not be sold as a slave is sold” is just a specific warning regarding the manner of his sale – it is not understood:

Why state the reason of “For they are My servants”, next to this law?

Seemingly, it should have been stated either in the beginning of the entire topic, or at its end

(Like in the section of selling oneself to a foreigner, that the verse “For the children of Israel are servants to Me” is state at the conclusion of all the commands).

(The R’om (R' Eliyahu Mizrachi) explains that,

“Since My contract of sale, in which I acquired them as servants for Me, comes before the contract of the one who he is being sold to, the document of his master is null compared to My contract, and his acquisition if not a valid acquisition. Therefore, he goes out from under him, and returns to his family, as if he was not sold. For if it is not so, what is the reason for stating, “For they are My servants”. Therefore, he returns to their family”.

In other words, according to R’om’s explanation “For they are My servants” is a reason for what is stated in the previous verse, “He shall return to his family etc.”.

However, since the reason “For they are My servants” is not stated in the previous verse, and not even in an independent verse. Rather, in the beginning of the verse that concludes “they shall not be sold as a slave is sold”, it appears that it is (primarily) a reason why “they shall not be sold as a slave is sold”, whose explanation, according to Rashi is,

“By public announcement, saying: “Here is a slave for sale!” Neither may they stand him up on an auctioning block”).

If so, the puzzlement is greater:

Why did Rashi choose to explain, in the simple meaning of the verse, specifically like the explanation in the second explanation of Torat Kohanim. Which according to this, the place of the warning, “For they are My servants” is questionable – and not according to the first explanation there, which is more fitting, seemingly, according to the simple meaning of the verse?

4. One could say that the explanation of all this is:

In all the laws of Hebrew slavery in our Parsha:

• • “Do not work him with slave labor”
  • “As an employee or a (hired) resident, he shall be with you etc.”
  • “Until the Jubilee year he shall work with you”.

one can learn this in two ways:

• That when one sells himself to a Yisroel, he is not in the scope of a slave, but rather as an employee. This is the reason for all the laws that come here, which are not in the scope of a “slave” but rather as an employee who hired himself until the Jubilee (or until six years if Jubilee has not arrived).

• He is a slave. (In other words, his body is subjugated and acquired to his master). However, there are conditions and stipulations in the manner that he is enslaved, etc., “Do not work him with slave labor”, and so forth.

According to the R’om and other commentators who explain Rashi's words, “My contract came before” -literally - that the acquisition of his master is not a valid acquisition. For,

"how can the slave or the sold object be sold a second time. The second buyer has no right compared to the first buyer",

it appears that they maintain like the first manner. Namely, that the context of all the commands is not just concerning the manner in which the master conducts himself with the slave, but rather that it concerns the very acquisition of him, that he is not a slave.

However, from Rashi's explanation in these verses it appears (is understood?) that they maintain like the second manner:

1. In the verse "slave labor" Rashi explains - "Degrading work, through which he is made to look like a slave, e.g., he must not carry his clothes after him to the bathhouse etc. “

In other words, that the disadvantage here is not that he works as a slave even though, in truth, he is not a slave. Rather, the disadvantage is that he does degrading work where he is made to look like a slave.

2.  On the verse:

“As an employee or a (hired) resident”

Rashi explains:

“(Give him dignified jobs, e.g.,) work in agriculture and craftsmanship; treat him like other employees”.     

In other words, his comparison to an employee is just regarding the type of labor and work that he does; and not that he is really considered an employee.

(Like the plain meaning of the verse, “As an employee or as a (hired) resident, he shall be with you”).

3.  Rashi's language is –

"If the Jubilee year occurs before the six years (of his servitude have elapsed), the Jubilee takes him out (of servitude)".

This requires examination. The verse states, " until the Jubilee year he shall work with you". Plainly, this means that his work, from the onset, is only until the Jubilee. Yet Rashi’s words "the Jubilee takes him out" implies that he is a slave, but the Jubilee takes him out of servitude.

4. In ​​his aforementioned commentary on,

"they shall not be sold as a slave is sold" - "namely, by public announcement, saying: “Here is a slave for sale etc."

Seemingly, according to the simple explanation of the verse "For they are My servants" that “My contract came before”, and therefore it is impossible that he be enslaved to another master. This itself is the explanation of the verse, “they shall not be sold as a slave is sold” and it is one thing (דבר אחד) with, "For they are My servants”. For since “they are My servants” therefore, it is impossible that a Ben Yisroel should be sold as a slave. Moreover, even if he is sold as a slave, the name "slave" and "employee" does not apply to him.

However, from that which Rashi explains, “they shall not be sold as a slave is sold " - that this is:

1. An independent command
2. A specific detail in the manner of his sale (that he not be sold by public announcement like a slave etc.) – this emphasizes that (according to his view) the name “slave” applies to him.

However, there are warnings and restrictions that the Torah commands regarding the manner of the master's conduct with him, as well as in the manner of his sale.

According to all this we find that the verse "For they are My servants" which Rashi explains as “My contract came before” - means:

Since “My contract came before”. Namely, that G-d’s acquisition of Bnei Yisroel preceded. Therefore, G-d has the power to command that even when a person is "sold to you" and made a “slave", there are conditions and leniencies (קולות) in the manner of his servitude and sale, etc., as aforementioned.

5. According to all this, the innovation in the Rashi’s second comment is understood, where he explains the verse (when one sells himself to a foreigner):

“For the children of Israel are servants to Me" - “My contract came before”:

The content of the Parsha regarding a servant who is sold to a foreigner, is not in the manner of the conduct of the master (the (foreigner) with the Yisroel who is his slave. Rather, it is regarding the departure and redemption of the Yisroel from a state of slavery (ממצב של עבדות)–

"After he is sold, he shall have redemption; one of his brothers shall redeem him. Or his uncle or . . or, if he becomes able to afford it, he can be redeemed (on his own)., He shall calculate with his purchaser (the number of years) from the year of his being sold to him until the Jubilee year etc. "

On this the verse concludes,

“For the children of Israel are servants to Me etc. "

The reason that the Torah commanded,

" After he is sold, he shall have redemption"

(that one must strive to redeem a slave sold to a foreigner)

is understood simply. As Rashi states, “immediately. Do not allow him to become assimilated".

What therefore is the point of adding:

“For the children of Israel are servants to Me"?

Therefore, one must stay that,

“For the children of Israel are servants to Me etc."

(is not solely the reason that Torah commanded to redeem him, but rather)

it comes to emphasize, that from the onset, the scope of “slave" does not apply to him and his body is not acquired to a foreigner. This is the reason for all the detailed commands regarding his redemption.

(This is also implied from the verse, “He shall be with him as an employee hired year by year; he shall not enslave him with rigor in your sight. "

For seemingly, it has already been said before this:

“as the days of a hired worker, he shall be with him”.

Rather Scripture emphasizes here that,

“he shall not enslave him with rigor in your sight"

is not an additional law and restriction in the manner of the conduct with the slave “in your sight". Rather, since he is “as a hired worker hired year by year", therefore, “he shall not enslave him with rigor in your sight ").

Therefore, Rashi explains that the addition “For the children of Israel are servants to Me" here means, “My contract came before” and he does not rely on his previous explanation, “My contract came before”.

This teaches us that here, the explanation of “My contract came before” is not like previous explanation.

• • The explanation of “My contract came before” when one sells himself to a Yisroel is a restriction in the manner of the conduct of the master with the slave, as aforementioned.

• • Whereas when one sells himself to a foreigner, “My contract came before” pertains to the essence of the sale - that another sale does not apply (which would make him considered the slave of a non-Jew), since “My contract came before”.

6. The reason for dividing the explanation of “My contract came before” between one who sells himself to a Yisroel and one who sells himself to a foreigner – is alluded to by Rashi’s explanation:

• Regarding one who sells himself to a foreigner – Rashi writes the explanation: “My contract came before” on the heading: "For the children of Israel are servants to Me" (כי לי בני ישראל עבדים: שטרי קודם) 
• This is not like when one sells himself to a Yisroel where Rashi writes the explanation: “My contract came before” on the heading: "For they are My servants" (כי עבדי הם: שטרי קודם)

"All the earth belongs to G-d (for) He created it". So too, all the creatures in the world "belong to G-d".

However, in the manner of "ownership" and rulership, there are many divisions and levels, as it were. This is like a mortal king. Although, he rules and reigns over his entire country, nevertheless there are differences between his actual assets,

(and in this itself – his inanimate assets are not comparable to his plant or animal assets)

and that of his countrymen that belong to him.

Moreover, regarding his countrymen themselves, there are many types: his statesmen, servants, slaves etc. So much so, that it extends to slaves who are in the level of "the slave of a king – is a king" (עבד מלך מלך) (in Rashi’s words).

Similarly, and moreover is this with regard to G-d’s ownership in His world, which, in addition to the divisions of inanimate, vegetative, animal and human (דדומם צומח חי ומדבר), there is also within the species of man itself, although everything is in the possession and ownership of G-d, Bnei Yisroel are different, since G-d brought them out of the land of Egypt from slavery and made them servants of G-d.

One could say, that because of this, there is the difference between: one who sells himself to a Yisroel, and one who sells himself to a foreigner:

When one sells himself to a Yisroel, the sale applies to the extent that he is called a slave. For since even his master the (Yisroel) is also a servant of G-d in the very same scope, and the slave of a king – is a king, there is no degradation (גריעותא) (so much) of being made a slave - of a slave (who is) a king.

However, since “My contract came before”, it is impossible to nullify from him, the scope of his first servitude, and that he should be considered solely as a slave to a mortal master (even though the master is a slave to the king).

Therefore, there are restrictions in the manner of his servitude:

• “do not work him with slave labor". “Degrading work, through which he is made to look like a slave”.
• “As an employee or a (hired) resident -Give him dignified jobs, e.g.) work in agriculture and craftsmanship; treat him like other employees”. Also,
• They shall not be sold as a slave is sold”, in this sale.

All this comes to negate that it should not be recognizable and evident that he is the slave of a mortal.

Whereas regarding foreigners who were not present at the Exodus from Egypt and at the issuance of the contract of being G-d's servants – when a Yisroel is sold to them, the statement:

“the children of Israel are servants to Me”

does not give a place for the sale and servitude to apply. For it is completely impossible to apply servitude to him.

M’Sichas Shabbat Parshat Behar, 5746