English translation — משפטים א

A.

On the verse¹

"When you see the donkey of your enemy lying under its burden, and you would refrain from helping him, you shall surely help with him" stands in the Mechilta: "Sometimes you refrain, sometimes you help,"

and two examples are brought there regarding which "you refrain": A)

(Donkey of a Jew and its load of a gentile, you shall surely help with him)

Donkey of a gentile and its load of a Jew, and you would refrain from helping him."

B)

"If it was among the graves, he shall not become impure" - if the animal was "among the graves," a kohen may not become impure for its sake.

Also Rashi in his commentary on the Torah brings this teaching

- After he explains the verse according to its simple meaning,

that the "interpretation" of the verse is: "lest you see his donkey crouching under its load,

and you refrain from leaving it for him, [but] you shall surely leave it with him"<sup>2</sup>

(and brings an example of this<sup>3</sup>

from a verse<sup>4</sup>

: "for you will say in your heart, these nations are more numerous than I, etc., you shall not fear them")

- Rashi continues

"And its midrash is thus: our Rabbis expounded: 'for you will see and you will refrain' — sometimes you refrain and sometimes you help<sup>5</sup>,

how so? An elder and it is not according to

His honor and you shall refrain, or the animal of a non-Jew and the load of a Jew and you shall refrain.

One must however understand the <b>change</b> in Rashi's commentary - that instead of the example of "

(Kohen vav)

was among the graves" which is stated in the Mechilta,

he says "an elder and not according to his honor".

"Elder and it is not according to his honor" is indeed brought in the books

(and Gemara&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;)

But on the verse&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;

"You shall not see your brother's ox etc. gone astray and hide yourself from them etc." - "Sometimes you hide yourself ..

He was a priest and he is in the cemetery or he was an elder and it is not according to his honor etc. exempt" - is perplexing:

Why does Rashi omit in his commentary the example

(priest and he was among the graves)

which is brought in the Mechilta &lt;b&gt;on the spot&lt;/b&gt;,

and brings the case

(elder and it is not according to his honor)

which Chazal say entirely&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;

on a different verse?

Also one must understand:

a)

In the Mechilta comes "a donkey of a gentile and its load of an Israelite" as the first case - but Rashi changes and brings it as the second example?

b)

Why does Rashi say

(as in the Mechilta&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;)

also the "and sometimes you help"?

Granted, in the Mechilta the language fits well with the continuation of the topic - since there it speaks about both opposite manners of "a donkey etc. its load"

("a donkey of an Israelite and its load of a gentile" and "a donkey of a gentile and its load of an Israelite"),

therefore "sometimes etc. sometimes you abandon"; but Rashi brings only the manner of "an animal of a gentile etc. and you shall refrain" - so what place does "and sometimes you help" have here,

since he does not speak about it in his commentary&lt;sup&gt;9&lt;/sup&gt;?

(And if he thinks that there is an obligation of "helper" in general - then this is explicit in the verse "azov ta'azov".

And further - how does this fit the saying "&lt;b&gt;Sometimes &lt;/b&gt;you help"!).

B.

The reason that Rashi does not bring the case of

(Mechilta)

"He was among the graves",

One could seemingly explain:

That which a kohen may not become impure in order to fulfill the positive commandment of "you shall surely help him raise it up,"

is because¹⁰

by

The impurity of a kohen is here a negative commandment and also a positive commandment,

and therefore it is understood by itself simply that it is not pushed aside by one positive commandment

(of "you shall surely help him raise it up")¹¹

; Rashi does not bring it¹²,

because one does not need to arrive at the <b>study</b> of

(the superfluous language)

"and you shall refrain etc."

says regarding the teaching from the verse "והתעלמת" - "פעמים שאתה מתעלם" - that the teaching is needed <b>only</b> to exclude "an elder and it is not according to his honor",

but not to exclude "a priest and he is in the cemetery"

(and similarly - not regarding the case of "his work was more than his fellow's work"&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;)].

But one cannot, without this, accept that Rashi holds that the exemption

(from both cases)

is <b>derived</b> from the verse "וחדלת"

(and therefore he does not bring the case of "he was among the graves")

- because according to this it is difficult

which is not mentioned in the Mechilta,

but moreover]

: &lt;b&gt;how &lt;/b&gt;can one from &lt;b&gt;one &lt;/b&gt;superfluous expression

("and you shall refrain etc.")

learn &lt;b&gt;two separate &lt;/b&gt;laws

(permissions)&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;

: a)

"an elder and not according to his honor" - that the obligation of unloading

("to unload the burden"&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;)

does not override human dignity; b)

"the animal of a gentile etc. and you shall refrain" - that the obligation of unloading is &lt;b&gt;not &lt;/b&gt;connected with the suffering of living creatures

(because from the perspective of the suffering of living creatures there is no difference to whom the animal belongs)&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;?

one must say,

that although the teaching from "and you shall refrain" is not the source of the exemption for &lt;b&gt;both &lt;/b&gt;cases&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;,

nevertheless Rashi brings them together,

because ultimately they are both included in the rule of "sometimes you refrain"&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;

Thus the difficulty returns to its place: Why

does Rashi not bring the case of the Mechilta on the spot "he was among the graves"¹⁹?

3.

Will one understand this with an introduction to explain the reason why Rashi is here generally specifying examples

And in particular, that on the verse "and you shall hide yourself" Rashi says "and our Rabbis said there are times that you hide yourself etc." - and does not explain what are the "times that you hide yourself",

but contents himself with "etc.".

And especially that:

(a)

Here it speaks about the obligation of unloading,

and there - about returning a lost object;

(b)

The second case in Rashi here - "a gentile's animal and a Jew's load" - does not fit by returning a lost object

(because from "his load of a Jew" one may not ignore it)].

One must say,

that since the matter of Rashi’s commentary on the Torah is only solely to explain the verses,

but not to teach

(particulars)

laws,

therefore he brings there only <b>the </b>part of the exposition of Chazal that pertains to the <b>explanation </b>of the verse

("You shall not see [your brother's donkey or his ox fallen on the road] and hide yourself from them — sometimes you may hide yourself")

Based on this — since in our parshah Rashi <b>does </b>specify the examples of "sometimes you may desist" — from this itself it is compelled,

that <b>here </b>this specification pertains and adds to the understanding of the plain meaning of the verse of "and you desist etc."

4.

The explanation in this:

The main difficulty in the simple interpretation of "כי תראה גו' וחדלת גו'" is

(Not only from the aspect of the &lt;b&gt;language &lt;/b&gt;of the verse,

which according to the interpretation “וחדלת מעזוב לו -בתמי’” comes out,

that the word “כי”

(which is “used in the sense of perhaps”&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;

( does not refer to the words “תראה חמור שונאך רובץ תחת משאו” which come &lt;b&gt;immediately after &lt;/b&gt;the word “כי”,

but only to the &lt;b&gt;later &lt;/b&gt;words “וחדלת גו’” -

But the main difficulty is in the &lt;b&gt;content&lt;/b&gt;

The reason,

simply,

why the verse needs to exclude the possibility of “and you refrain from leaving it for him,”

is because here it speaks about “the donkey of &lt;b&gt;your enemy&lt;/b&gt;”&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;

; the question arises: similarly to what is stated in the verse &lt;b&gt;right before this&lt;/b&gt;: “When you encounter the ox &lt;b&gt;of your enemy&lt;/b&gt; etc. going astray” — and there the verse is &lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; warning with the phrase “and you refrain from returning it to him”

(and the like)

— it is perplexing,

whichever way you look at it:

If it is necessary to safeguard regarding an enemy and a hater,

the verse should have said it the &lt;b&gt;first&lt;/b&gt; time that it speaks about such a case; and if it is not necessary to safeguard there

- Because what is it coming to teach us?

And as with all other commandments of the Torah,

it does not say that if someone does not want to obey the commandment - one says that he must obey -

So why does the verse say it in our case,

the second time?

From this Rashi takes out,

that the "vechadalt go..." comes to teach a law that pertains &lt;b&gt;only &lt;/b&gt;to our verse; and therefore Rashi cannot suffice with saying "umedrasho ...

pe'amim she'atah chodel",

rather must bring also the cases&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;

when "atah chodel" - that the

(second)

case "behemet nochri umasa'o shel yisrael" pertains &lt;b&gt;only &lt;/b&gt;in our verse,

and not

(in the previous verse)

by returning a lost object as above - and therefore it stands "vechadalt go..."

("pe'amim she'atah chodel")

in this verse specifically.

It remains however difficult

(as above section a)

: why does Rashi bring

(also)

"zaken ve'eino lefi kevodo"?

5.

The explanation in this:

By bringing the "Midrash" Rashi is not coming to say a second <b>interpretation</b> in the verse,

rather that this is <b>in continuation</b> to the first interpretation,

the derash is complementing

(answers a <b>side</b> difficulty in)

the <b>plain meaning</b>.

(as in most places)

"And its midrash":

With this Rashi emphasizes,

that the explanation of "midrash" &lt;b&gt;by itself&lt;/b&gt; is distant from the plain meaning of Scripture

(is not a derash close to the plain meaning)

; it is a &lt;b&gt;separate&lt;/b&gt; matter of &lt;b&gt;derash&lt;/b&gt; "&lt;b&gt;And its midrash&lt;/b&gt; so &lt;b&gt;they expounded&lt;/b&gt;",

it remains a derash.

One only joins his “midrash” to the plain meaning of the verse,

d.

h.

that with “and you refrain” the verse intends <b>also</b> to <b>allude</b> to “sometimes you refrain”].

In another style: by bringing the <b>midrash</b> that “sometimes you refrain” — the above question becomes correct

(not in the <b>plain meaning</b> of the verse,

but)

why specifically here must the Torah negate the assumption “lest you see …

and you refrain from leaving him” —

Since "sometimes you desist",

a person can have a mistake

(or consider himself permitted),

that also in &lt;b&gt;his &lt;/b&gt;case it is not so harsh if he will desist from it&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;

(as follows).

Therefore &lt;b&gt;here &lt;/b&gt;the verse negates this by saying "and you desist etc.

(with a question mark)

-rather 'you shall surely help him'."

6.

In order to understand why one should be concerned that the “times” of “You cease” are liable to cause the aforementioned ks”d — Rashi explains what these cases are:

a)

“An elder and not in accordance with his honor” — the obligation of unloading is pushed off even because of &lt;b&gt;honor &lt;/b&gt;of the person

(and all the more so because of weakness of the person’s strength)

b)

"An animal of a gentile and its load of an Israelite" - from this one sees,

that here one is not able to prevent the suffering of the animal.

And this is what Rashi prefaces "<b>Sometimes you desist and sometimes you help</b>": it is not the simple meaning that in general,

in most cases,

there is the command "you shall surely help" and the permission of "and you shall desist"

("Sometimes you desist")

is only in

<b>Exception</b> cases - only the obligation of פריקה is from the outset limited and restricted,

"Sometimes you desist and sometimes you help" - the "desister" and the "helper" are divided as if into equal "times".

And consequently it is understandable that a person can thereby easily permit himself not to fulfill the command,

Therefore the Torah explicitly negates such an assumption - "וחדלת מעזוב לו

(with a question mark)

עזוב תעזוב עמו".

Based on this it is understandable why Rashi precedes the case of "an elder and not according to his honor" to the case of "an animal of a gentile etc." - because the &lt;b&gt;main &lt;/b&gt;cause for convincing oneself that the permission is valid also in his case comes from the exemption by an elder and not according to his honor; in contrast the exemption of "an animal of a gentile etc." is a secondary reason and support that the obligation

(in general)

should not be severe in his eyes.

And it is also explained &lt;b&gt;simply &lt;/b&gt; why Rashi does not bring the case of "he was among the graves": from &lt;b&gt;that &lt;/b&gt; case one cannot derive any leniency in the generality of the obligation of unloading,

because:

(a)

This is a rare occurrence

(that an animal with a load should be found in a cemetery; and the finder is a kohen).

(b)

And the main point: the reason for the exemption is connected with the &lt;b&gt;severity &lt;/b&gt; of the impurity of a kohen and not because of the &lt;b&gt;leniency &lt;/b&gt; in &lt;b&gt;unloading&lt;/b&gt;.

7.

With this also comes an additional explanation why it says "and you shall refrain etc." specifically in our verse,

and not in the previous verse regarding returning a lost object

(although also regarding returning a lost object it is

The same law — "Sometimes you are oblivious",

as above)

By returning a lost object it is not appropriate to say that from the cases when "you are oblivious" one will learn a permissive ruling to be lenient in the entirety of this commandment — because returning a lost object,

in the manner of the majority,

is not connected with any great trouble etc.

- This verse speaks about "When you encounter &lt;b&gt;an ox &lt;/b&gt;..

&lt;b&gt;his donkey &lt;/b&gt;wandering",

which carries itself,

And even in the book of Deuteronomy&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;

it speaks about "his garment ..

(L)

any lost item of your brother",

where for all of them the returning is mostly not a great trouble&lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;.

But not in our case,

in unloading,

this is a work that is always connected with trouble etc.; and since an "elder and not according to his honor" is exempt,

one can derive from this a leniency in the entirety of the commandment,

as above.

8.

In Rashi's commentary, "wonders" are indeed hinted at²⁵

in the Torah:

According to the Baal Shem Tov's explanation²⁶

on <b>the </b>verse,

that "donkey" alludes to the body

("your material"),

and "you shall surely help him" means,

that one may not

(abandon and)

break the body through fasts and afflictions,

but one must refine and purify it,

one can say,

that therefore Rashi brings the two manners specifically "that you cease"

an elder and not according to his honor,

(b)

a gentile's animal and a Jew's load]

- because they allude to the two manners

(which are brought in the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch²⁷)

when one may fast -

(a)

fasts of repentance,

(b)

fasts to purge his soul for God;

And it can be said that they correspond to the two manners in Igeret HaTeshuvah: 1)

the beginning of chapter 1,

2)

the beginning of chapter 2.

Fasts of repentance are when it speaks about repentance

(or - its completeness)

for &lt;b&gt;sins&lt;/b&gt;.

This manner Rashi hints at in the case of "an animal of a non-Jew and the load of an Israelite": when a Jew sins,

G-d forbid - his body and animal soul become severed from holiness and temporarily they pass under the dominion of the husk

(it becomes "his animal of a non-Jew")

But it is indeed even the sinners of&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;

Israel are full of &lt;b&gt;commandments&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;

like a pomegranate - a burden

of

(commandments -)

Israel.

And especially when the soul of a Jew,

is "even at the time of sin it was in faith with Him"&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;,

it remains whole with the Jew.

In contrast, the fasts "to refine his soul for G‑d" are afterward,

when he has done complete repentance

(as per his language in chapter 2 of that [chapter]),

but he wants to attain "refinement of the soul for G‑d"³¹

that he should be for acceptance before G‑d etc.,

and it can be through the second extreme: when someone is immersed in refined and spiritual matters,

and therefore he does not occupy himself

(so much)

with the service of clarification and refinement of the body,

his body can remain in a certain state of materiality and coarseness which also causes a coarseness, at least an incompleteness in refinement of the soul³²

— therefore he needs to have fasts which effect a refinement and clarification of the body and the soul.

And this is what Rashi hints with the case of "an elder and it is not according to his honor": these are the fasts of one who is an "elder" — this is one who has acquired wisdom³³

— therefore for him the engagement in clarification and refinement of his body

("donkey")

is a matter of "not according to his honor",

it is a descent relative to his honor

(and his level³⁴

(the spiritual))

; and the fasts to refine his soul

they exemplify for him the refinement of the body which he lacked.

And based on this it is understood

(in the inwardness of the matters)

why Rashi does not bring down the case of “

(Kohen 6)

was among the graves” — because the matter of the example in spiritual service is

(in the manner of the matter of “the animal of a non-Jew and the load of an Israelite”)

: the animal is “among the graves” — through sins the body and animal soul descend into “the place of death and impurity”³⁵,

but the soul of a Jew is in the category of “

(daughter)

Kohen”³⁶

— outside and above the place of death and impurity,

because “even at the time of sin she was in faith with Him, blessed be He”,

as above.

And Rashi selects specifically the case of an elder and it is not according to his honor - because in spirituality the reality of true "he was among the graves" does &lt;b&gt;not &lt;/b&gt;exist: also a Jewish body is an &lt;b&gt;eternal &lt;/b&gt;reality regarding which death and total loss are not applicable; it is "the work of My hands to glorify"&lt;sup&gt;37&lt;/sup&gt;

And in it there is the choice of the Holy One, blessed be He&lt;sup&gt;38&lt;/sup&gt;

Which cannot become "lost" G-d forbid.

He can only be found in the domain of a non-Jew,

but this is only a change

(in)

&lt;b&gt;domain&lt;/b&gt;,

that temporarily he is under his domain,

but not a change in the &lt;b&gt;essence &lt;/b&gt;of the body - for also then it is

A Jewish body.

That the very essence of the body of a Jew should spiritually be located literally in a "cemetery"

(spiritual death)

-this one cannot say!

And regarding the halacha³⁹

- a Jew who

(also)

Torah says that "sold to a non-Jew" then the body itself is he one of "For to Me the children of Israel are servants,

My servants are they,

my writs precede".

9.

And this is also the explanation according to the inner aspect of the matters in the two commentaries that Rashi says here on the verse:

According to the simple meaning, "וחדלת מעזוב לו" is a wonder: a Jew who walks uprightly,

as God made man upright⁴⁰,

and serves the Most High according to the order of the Torah — the verse says "וחדלת מעזוב לו — in wonder": there must not be any matter of afflictions and fasts that break the body,

rather one must occupy oneself with the body to refine it and purify it,

according to the teaching of the Baal Shem Tov mentioned above.

Afterwards comes "umedrasho" - which also protects those who sinned and blemished,

or at least did not go in the straight path - and consequently the reality of "sometimes you desist" becomes,

as above.

Nevertheless,

notwithstanding the above that because of the matter of repentance one may fast,

and "&lt;b&gt;even one who cannot fast&lt;/b&gt;"&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;

- says the Alter Rebbe in Igeret HaTeshuvah&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt;

a clear directive,

that "in his generation—

Therefore, one should not increase in fasts, even fasts of repentance,

rather one should redeem the fasts with charity;

And since the weakness of the generation is not from one's own choice,

but because the &lt;b&gt;Almighty &lt;/b&gt;created the generation thus,

it is certain,

that also through the manner of service as indicated by the Baal Shem Tov and the Alter Rebbe, nothing is lacking, G-d forbid, in the correction of the deficiency that one would have had through fasts and afflictions&lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt;,

In our generation this has been given the power to be able to rectify undesirable matters in a manner that is not connected with pain and worry,

but specifically out of joy and goodness of heart.

(From the sicha of Shabbos Parshas Mishpatim 5726)