English translation — משפטים ב

A.

From the verse "When you acquire etc."¹

Rashi quotes the words "When you acquire a Hebrew slave" and explains: "A slave who is a Hebrew, or perhaps it is only the slave of a Hebrew, a Canaanite slave²

that you purchased from an Israelite, and about him it says 'Six years he shall serve,' and how do I uphold 'And you shall bequeath them'³

regarding one purchased from a gentile, but regarding one purchased from an Israelite he goes free after six years, the verse says etc.'"

One must understand:

( The explanation is indeed only on the words "eved ivri" – why does Rashi also quote the words "ki tikneh"*<sup>3</sup>?

– One cannot say,

that Rashi quotes them because from them one can be assisted that here it speaks about an "eved shehu ivri"<sup>4</sup>

– as Rashi explains further<sup>5</sup>

that "ki tikneh" must speak in a manner of "michruhu beit din",

which this applies only by an "eved shehu ivri"

(– because: )

A

A

( here the compulsion of Rashi )

that here it speaks about "sold by the court"

( is not from the words "when you acquire",

but from the side of the superfluity of the verse,

since it already says "and if your brother becomes impoverished with you and is sold to you"<sup>6</sup>

( on the contrary: also this compulsion )

that "sold by the court" – from the side of the verse "and if your brother becomes impoverished"

( applies specifically after one already has a proof from earlier that here it speaks about "a slave who is a Hebrew" and not "of a Hebrew" – as is also implied from the order of the commentaries in Rashi )

that he precedes the commentary that is )

in any case – primarily

( on "Hebrew slave" before the commentary on "when you acquire"<sup>7</sup>.

B

(B

( How does an initial assumption even come that the translation of "eved ivri" is "slave of a Hebrew"?

– At first glance it is more simple that "eved ivri" means "a slave who is a Hebrew",

as one sees it in many places in the Torah )

by "naar ivri"<sup>8</sup>

regarding Joseph; and also in the Prophets and Writings – "and to Sheshan an Egyptian slave"<sup>9</sup>,

which the explanation is that he had an Egyptian as a slave<sup>10</sup>.

And so it is also,

on the other hand,

proved from the language of the verse¹¹

"a slave to a man Amalek,"

that when the verse means "slave of an Amalekite" it does not say "slave of Amalekite" but "slave to a man Amalekite"¹².

Commentators¹³

say that the initial assumption "slave of a Hebrew" is from the precision of the language "when you buy a Hebrew slave,"

from which it is implied,

that he buys one who is already a slave from before,

and consequently it is logical to interpret "slave of a Hebrew."

This is however not sufficient¹⁴,

because if from the language of the verse,

from the plain meaning of Scripture – it is more implied that it speaks about "the slave of a Hebrew",

Rashi would have had to begin his commentary with that )

for example

( "Could it be the slave of a Hebrew" – and afterwards negate it "Scripture says, etc." a necessity that this means "a slave who is a Hebrew"¹⁵.

From that which Rashi immediately begins "a slave who is a Hebrew" it is proven,

that this is the first reasoning as to how to interpret the verse and only afterwards does a doubt arise "Or is it only the slave of a Hebrew".

3

( Why does Rashi need to protect the "And you shall take possession of them" — the question will only arise when one comes to that verse — near the end of the book of Vayikra!

And although the source of this entire Rashi commentary is from the Mechilta — it is nevertheless known (

as has been discussed many times

( that everything that Rashi writes in his commentary on the Torah is necessary from the plain meaning of the verses on the spot )

or — together with what was learned earlier

(; and especially that in our case Rashi does not mention that the source of his commentary is from the Mechilta.

From this it is understood that the entire commentary is necessarily according to the plain meaning of the verse here.

B.

The explanation in this: It says earlier in the verse<sup style="">16</sup>,

that at the time of the Exodus from Egypt, the Jews took from Egypt <b>a lot of</b> silver vessels and gold vessels etc.; afterwards there came to them additional silver and gold etc. from the spoils of the sea,

as <b>Rashi</b> says on "And Moses journeyed"<sup style="">17</sup> )

After the splitting of the Red Sea

( – "He drove them against their will, for the Egyptians adorned their horses with ornaments of gold and silver and precious stones, and the Jews would find them in the sea, and the spoils of the sea were greater than the spoils of Egypt."

D.

E.

That for all the Jews,

was fulfilled the promise that they would have a "<b>great</b> wealth"<sup style="">18</sup>.

From this it is understood simply,

that in a situation of such great wealth among Jews it was then not possible the reality that a Jew should <b>become</b>*<sup style="">18</sup> a slave )

which comes about because of poverty and lack of money<sup style="">19</sup>

And since the section "And these are the judgments" comes immediately after the Giving of the Torah,

a short time after the Exodus from Egypt and the Splitting of the Sea,

it is logical that first and foremost the Most High commanded Jews the judgments and commandments on matters that were relevant and prevalent immediately at that time and situation,

like "You shall not make with Me gods of <b>silver</b> and gods of <b>gold</b>, etc.,

an altar of earth etc. an altar of stones you shall make for Me"<sup style="">20</sup> and not )

or – not specifically

( an altar of silver and gold – although each of them had an abundance of silver and gold^*20

Therefore,

after Rashi introduces "a slave who is a Hebrew",

that the <b>language</b> "Hebrew slave" means simply "a slave who is a Hebrew",

one must, however, secure "or is it only the slave of a Hebrew" –

From the <b>continuation and order</b> of the verses the reasoning compels,

that here it speaks about "the slave <b>of</b> a Hebrew,

a Canaanite slave whom he took from Israel",

because that Jews,

every Hebrew had then<sup style="">21</sup> )

right after the spoils of Egypt and the spoils of the sea as mentioned above

( had "great wealth",

also had male slaves<sup style="">22</sup> and female slaves – as was said before this at the Ten Commandments<sup style="">23</sup> "your male slave and your female slave"<sup style="">24</sup>.

(3.

By a ben chameish l'mikra, however, the question can arise: we learned earlier,

that Avraham Avinu had a servant,

Eliezer,

from even before the Brit Bein HaBtarim²⁵

and remained "eved Avraham" also tens of years later,

as is told at his mission to arrange the shidduch for Yitzchak Avinu²⁶

– and since Avraham fulfilled kol haTorah kulah ad shelo nitnah )

as Rashi already explained earlier²⁷,

( then how is it that Avraham kept a servant²⁸

Canaani²⁹)

Eliezer

( for so many years and did not fulfill the Torah's command here that "sheish shanim ya'avod uva-shvi'it yeitzei lachofshi chinam" )

if this means "avdo shel ivri"³⁰?

Therefore Rashi must safeguard in our parshah this matter,

but instead of the wonder about Avraham's conduct he brings the )

same

( contradiction with greater force – from a verse and an explicit mitzvah in the Torah – "u'mah ani mekayeim v'hitnachaltem otam

and answers

( taken from the non-Jew )

That is also how it was by Eliezer the servant of Abraham.

D.

According to the above it is understood why Rashi brings from the verse also the words "ki tikneh" because this strengthens the explanation that it means "eved shehu ivri":

– Because prima facie the introduction of the verse "when you acquire" is superfluous – he could have begun with the actual law: "A Hebrew slave shall serve six years" )

as one finds in several places in the Torah,

for example in our portion "one who strikes a man and he dies etc."&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;

The expression "when you acquire" denotes a future action – but in the present the action is not yet,

and moreover in our matter: it is not at all applicable in the present – since they had the spoils of Egypt and the Sea,

as above.

Consequently, from this it is proven,

that here it is speaking about the acquisition of a slave who is a Hebrew,

which at that time is not applicable – and not about a Canaanite slave )

"slave of a Hebrew",

( since regarding him it does not fit )

and is superfluous

( the "when you acquire",

because due to the abundance of their wealth, Jews at that time certainly had slaves )

Canaanites,

( and it is obvious that one cannot say that it is not a common and regular thing&lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt;.

5.

Based on this, however, it is not understandable: why indeed does the Torah begin the laws of Mishpatim )

immediately after the Giving of the Torah

( with the law of a Hebrew slave,

which at that time was a thing not at all common,

and not with a common and regular thing; and especially since "when you acquire a Hebrew slave" is,

a result of a prior action of theft,

for which he is obligated to pay fivefold or fourfold or double*&lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt;

and "if he has nothing, then he is sold for his theft"&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;

– here indeed the Torah seemingly should have first announced the prior laws of the obligation of payment of several times – five, four, and double?

(And since this is a difficulty in the plain sense of Scripture that is not understood,

why does Rashi )

who explains all difficulties in the plain sense of Scripture

( not answer this in his commentary )

and as we indeed find that other commentators on the Torah&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;

address this,

although their commentaries are not entirely according to the plain sense like Rashi's commentary.

One cannot say that according to the plain sense of Scripture this is not a difficulty at all,

because according to the way of the plain sense a reason and rationale for the juxtaposition of the commandment of the laws is not necessary – for )

in addition to what at the beginning of our portion itself Rashi emphasizes "And these etc. adds to the first ones, just as the first ones were from Sinai, so too these are from Sinai, and why was it juxtaposed etc."

( according to the above this is indeed – that it was juxtaposed to the situation of the spoiling of Egypt and the sea – the rationale of the one who raises an objection in this Rashi that the verse does not speak about "a Hebrew slave" but about a Canaanite slave&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;.

And furthermore and mainly – here it cannot be "when you acquire a Hebrew slave" before you conclude the law of "and he is sold for his theft."

6.

And it can be said that Rashi guarded this with his commentary in the continuation of our parshah³⁶

"And why did the ear see fit to be pierced from all the other limbs of the body? Said Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai: This ear that heard on Mount Sinai 'You shall not steal' and went and stole, let it be pierced; and if one sells himself, the ear that heard on Mount Sinai 'For the children of Israel are servants to Me' and went and acquired a master for himself, let it be pierced."

The reasoning in this: Regarding other commandments, one does not find that the Torah should emphasize the connection of the reward of the commandment to the commandment.

And as an example: the commandment of honoring father and mother,

whose reward is "in order that your days be lengthened etc." – is (

in addition to the fact that the reward is not apparent immediately after the commandment,

but only after a long period of time – is

( in the essence of the reward the connection specifically to the commandment is not noticeable.

And the same regarding punishments for transgressions,

one does not see in the punishment of lashes or karet and the like a particular connection to the transgressions,

which obligate these punishments.

By a Hebrew slave, however, the Torah connects the punishment with its cause: "and his master shall bore etc. his ear" comes because "the ear that heard at Mount Sinai etc."

And although the obligation of "and his master shall bore his ear, etc." comes

not immediately at the actions that caused him to be a "Hebrew slave,"

but

( only after "if the slave shall say, I love my master, my wife, and my children, I will not go out free"&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;

– it is nevertheless not a punishment for that which he said "I love, etc.,"

but for that which "the ear that heard at Mount Sinai 'you shall not steal' and went and stole,"

or "that heard at Mount Sinai 'for to Me the children of Israel are servants' and went and acquired a master for himself" – immediately when he

causes and

( becomes a "slave

Hebrew

With this is explained that "when you acquire a Hebrew slave, etc." is the first of the laws that the Torah states immediately after the Giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai: a Hebrew slave is seen

in his punishment

( in an open and recognizable manner

also in his physical body

( the connection of his judgment with "Mount Sinai".

And according to the above (

Rashi: "An ear that heard, etc."

( is a fundamental novelty in the laws of a Hebrew slave – the non-following of the statement at Mount Sinai,

and the "he has no [means] and is sold" (

due to the greatness of the payment

( is an external cause – he connects the law of a Hebrew slave to "these are from Sinai" and hints at the connection to theft in the detail of "and you shall bore through his ear."

7.

According to the above explanation of Rashi on "when you acquire" – there comes an additional clarification in this:

If the reality of eved ivri would have then,

right after Matan Torah,

been a common and current thing,

one could say that this itself is the reason that the law was stated first — because it is a matter that is relevant immediately after Matan Torah;

Since however that eved ivri was then,

as above, entirely a matter of the future and a rare case — this compels to say,

that the reason that the law was stated at the beginning is because of the special matter of "eved ivri" — his special connection to "Har Sinai".

8.

And it will be sweetened according to the inwardness of the matters: Since the entire intention and purpose of the Giving of the Torah is to accomplish through Torah and mitzvos the clarification and refinement in the matters of the world (

But not so the Torah and mitzvos of the Patriarchs before the Giving of the Torah,

which did not effect a change in the physicality of the world&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;,

therefore the first of the laws after the Giving of the Torah is such a command and law in which one sees in revelation how the Giving of the Torah also affects the physicality of the world&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;.

And in this is expressed the level of service of a "Hebrew slave" – as the teachings of Chassidus&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;

explains the three levels: Canaanite slave, Hebrew slave, and Hebrew maidservant in the service of G-d – in the soul of man:

A "Canaanite slave" is one whose animal soul is at its full strength, "a slave [who] prefers to be ownerless"&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt;

and draws downward to the lusts of this world,

but he coerces himself and serves G-d in action, in speech, in thought, and in feeling, by way of acceptance of the yoke and fear of the Master.

(The service of a "Hebrew slave" is on a higher level: by him the attributes of the G-dly soul illuminate within the animal soul,

until that also in the animal soul there is a longing for G-d; but he has not yet been transformed into holiness,

so that he should have no desire for the lusts of this world)

In the manner of a slave who brings into the house all the necessities for the household members, of eating and drinking; but they are not yet fit for human consumption – they are not yet cooked, etc.,

not changed from their previous essence.

The service of a Hebrew maidservant is that the desires and attributes of the animal soul become transformed into holiness until his desire is only for G-dliness.

(And with this it is understood,

that the beginning of the laws after the Giving of the Torah,

which brings out the effect of the Giving of the Torah in the world,

is with the laws of a Hebrew slave,

because this )

Hebrew slave

( is the beginning of the service of a Jew after the Giving of the Torah – to effect upon the animal soul and worldly matters in general that they should be changed and enter into the domain of holiness )

unlike the service of a Canaanite slave, there is not yet any true change in his attributes and likewise in his portion in the world,

And afterwards comes the continuation in the parshah – the continuation of the avodah – he comes to the avodah of the Hebrew maidservant,

that one transforms the middos of the animal soul and the matters of the world in general,

that they should become a dwelling place for Him, blessed be He.

Farbrengen of Shabbos Parshas Mishpatim 5736