English translation — בהר ב

1.

In this week's Torah portion, the Torah says,

that a Jew who sold himself as a slave to another Jew,

is that when the "year of Jubilee" arrives — "then he shall go out from you, he and his children with him"¹.

Rashi stands on "he and his children with him" and explains: Said Rabbi Shimon: If he was sold, who sold his children? Rather, from here [we learn] that the master is obligated for the sustenance of his children.

One must understand: the question in the verse is only "Banav mi karan" — so why does Rashi also say the introduction "Im hu nimkar"?

(Although this is the language of R"Sh<sup>2</sup>

— but

(as discussed several times)

it is not the manner of Rashi in his commentary on the Torah to copy the teachings of our Sages in their language,

and therefore he often changes

(and certainly — omits and abridges)

from the language of our Sages — in accordance with the explanation of the verse according to its plain meaning).

The wonder in this is even stronger: in the portion of the Hebrew slave in Parsha Mishpatim it says³

"If he is a husband of a wife, then his wife shall go out with him" and Rashi explains: "his wife shall go out with him — But who brought her in that she should go out? Rather, Scripture tells that the acquirer etc. is obligated for sustenance etc."

One sees there,

that Rashi indeed does not say the introduction "If he is sold",

but he asks directly on "his wife" — "But who brought her in etc."; now why here in

Our parshah is it <b>already </b>precedes "If he is sold"?

The wonder is even greater: the source of the statement of R. Shimon that Rashi brings in our parshah is in the Gemara*<sup>3</sup>,

and there it is brought that R. Shimon also expounded the verse from Mishpatim "And his wife shall go out with him" in the same style — "Said R. Shimon <b>If he is sold </b>his wife is sold? From here that the master is obligated etc." — and nevertheless,

there Rashi <b>does not </b>copy the wording of the statement of R. Shimon

("If he is sold etc."),

rather he brings

(from the Mechilta<sup>4</sup>)

"For who brought her in that she should go out."

And in our case he brings the wording of R. Shimon?

Further: also that Rashi brings the words "his sons who will sell him" is not understandable: in Toras Kohanim here<sup>5</sup>

is brought initially the <b>teaching </b>from the verse — "the master is obligated for the sustenance ..

his sons",

without the introduction of the question "his sons who will sell him"<sup>6</sup>

; did indeed Rashi — whose way in his commentary is

(not to preface the question in the verse and then give the answer,

but)

to say initially

(only)

the explanation of the verse — certainly should have begun with the explanation: "From here that the master is obligated for the sustenance of his sons",

not to preface the question<sup>7</sup>

"his sons who will sell him".

B.

Seemingly one could explain the difference between the two explanations of Rashi,

that this depends on the difference of language in the two verses:

In our verse it says "<b>He </b>and his sons with him",

Therefore Rashi also speaks about this "If <b>he </b>is sold, his sons who sells them"; but not so in Parsha Mishpatim it says only "And his wife shall go out with him"

(without the word "he"),

Rashi says only "And who brought her in etc."

But the explanation is entirely insufficient,

For Rashi wrote his commentary on the Torah with utmost precision and brevity,

And does not use mere rhetoric or wordplay and the like; and since "If he is sold" is not a <b>commentary </b>on the word "he" that is in the verse,

But only an introduction to "his sons who sells them" — then from either side:

If the question "His sons sell him" requires an introduction "If he is sold" — Rashi should have said the introduction also in his commentary in Parshat Mishpatim; and if the question does <b>not </b>require the introduction

(Why therefore does Rashi not bring it in Parshat Mishpatim)

— why does he bring it in our parshah?

One must say,

that there is a difference in content between the two verses,

because of which it will also be correct that: a)

In Parshat Mishpatim Rashi brings

(not the statement of R. Shimon,

but)

from the Mechilta,

and in our parshah specifically the statement of R. Shimon is appropriate.

b)

In our parshah Rashi also copies the name of the author of the statement — R. Shimon,

but in Parshat Mishpatim Rashi does not bring the

Name of the author of the discourse

(that is, the Mechilta)

— R. Yitzchak.

3.

Another wonder in the two commentaries of Rashi:

In Parshas Mishpatim Rashi says "The Scripture tells ..

is obligated in the sustenance of his wife <b>and his sons</b>",

although in the verse "his sons" are not mentioned.

The commentators say<sup>8</sup>,

that that which Rashi adds "his sons",

he does not mean to say that we learn it from the verse "And his wife shall go out with him"

— because,

as said,

the verse speaks only about "his wife",

one cannot know from this the law of sustenance of "his sons"

(and as it stands in the Gemara<sup>9</sup>,

it is even more — according to logic one could say,

that specifically his wife,

who is ashamed to go begging from door to door,

her husband is obligated in her sustenance,

but not his sons)

But since he states the law of his wife's sustenance,

he brings incidentally also the law of his sons' sustenance,

relying on the verse from our parshah; and as it indeed states in the Mechilta¹⁰

: „..

is obligated for her sustenance and for his sons' sustenance, as it is said, "he shall go out from you, he and his sons with him."

But the explanation is unclear.

Because

(Besides this, that according to this Rashi in our parshah should have mentioned incidentally also "his wife"*<sup>10</sup>

— and as it indeed stands in Toras Kohanim<sup>11</sup>

"Just as a master is obligated for his sustenance, so too a master is obligated for the sustenance of <b>his wife </b>and his children" — is)

However, since the Mechilta needs to explicitly interpret that the sustenance of his children is derived from another verse,

then certainly Rashi

(who explains the plain meaning of the verse,

and also for a child of five)

surely should have done so.

One must say,

that according to Rashi — a teaching in the manner of <b>the plain meaning </b>— one can indeed derive the sustenance of his children from the sustenance of his wife<sup>12</sup>

; it is not understandable: why does one need to have <b>yet </b>a teaching

(from the verse in our parshah)

that a master is obligated in the sustenance of his children?

The difficulty is even greater: Rashi in our parshah is precise in his language — „

(but rather)

<b>From here </b>that a master is obligated in the sustenance of his children"

(not as in parshas Mishpatim where he says the phrase "the scripture states")

; Rashi emphasizes,

that the teaching is specifically "<b>from here</b>",

and <b>not </b>from another place.

It turns out,

that the two explanations of Rashi are contradictory to each other?

4.

This will be understood shortly, based on a nuance in the language of Rashi in our parshah:

Rashi begins "If he is <b>sold</b>"

(in the nifal form)

and concludes "his sons who <b>sell him</b>"

(in the paal form)

— and prima facie, Rashi should have used the same form for both — either "If he is sold, his sons who <b>are sold</b><sup>13</sup>

(are sold<sup>14</sup>)

or "If he

<b>sold himself</b>¹⁵

His sons, who sold them?

The wonder in this is even greater: in the Gemara the wording is indeed "if he is sold, his sons ...

who <b>are sold</b>",

and Rashi <b>changes</b> from this wording and says "his sons, who <b>sold them</b>"!

The explanation in this:

According to the halacha, a father cannot sell his son

(the minor)

as a slave,

as we learn from the verse¹⁶

"And if a man sells his daughter — the man sells his daughter and does not sell his son"; and therefore the Gemara uses the expression "his sons ...

who are <b>sold</b>"

(Are they, then,

in general,

sold?)¹⁷

Regarding the simple explanation, but one cannot infer from the verse "And when a man sells his daughter as a maidservant" "his daughter" and not "his son" — because the section initially speaks about the special laws of a Hebrew maidservant¹⁸,

and therefore it says "his daughter"; but also "his son" he can sell¹⁹,

because there is no reason

(Regarding the simple explanation)²⁰

to differentiate

between his daughter and his son — that his daughter he can sell and not his son²¹.

And for this reason Rashi changes from the language of the Talmud and says

(not "who are sold",

but)

"who sold them" — because according to the simple meaning one can sell "his sons",

the question is only "who sold them".

5.

Based on this, the lengthy language of Rashi "if he is sold" will also be understood:

Rashi’s are difficult not only the words “ובניו עמו”,

but also the word “הוא”

(because of which he cites also <b>the </b>word in the dibur hamatchil)

— at first glance,

the word “הוא” in the verse is superfluous: it says indeed “ויצא מעמך”,

it should have said “ויצא מעמך ובניו עמו” — why does it also say “הוא”?

One could learn,

that in our parshah where it speaks about “כי ימוך אחיך”²²

the Torah means with “הוא ובניו עמו” to hint at two realities: “ויצא מעמך” speaks in a case when he sold only himself alone as a slave; and “הוא ובניו עמו” speaks about a case when the “ימוך אחיך” is to such an extent,

that he together with himself

He also sold his children&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;

(his sons and his daughters&lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;),

and about this the Torah says,

that when the year of Jubilee comes — "he shall go out

(from you or)

he and his children with him".

And this interpretation Rashi rejects with his lengthy language: "If &lt;b&gt;he is sold&lt;/b&gt;" — it is understandable regarding "&lt;b&gt;he&lt;/b&gt;",

it stands in the verse about him explicitly "&lt;b&gt;and he is sold &lt;/b&gt;to you"; but "his children who sold them" — where does it stand in the verse&lt;sup&gt;25&lt;/sup&gt;

that he sold them,

that the verse should afterwards tell about their going out to freedom&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;.

and the word "he",

Rashi has nothing to

bring the

(language of Rabbi Shimon)

"if he is sold"²⁷].

To this Rashi answers "rather from here that the master is obligated in the sustenance of his sons" — that with "he and his sons with him" the Torah does not speak about going out to freedom,

but about the law of sustenance

(in which the master is obligated)

; what regarding this, also "his sons with him" are — in the master's domain.

And since in this obligation of sustenance of <b>our</b> verse there is a novelty also regarding the slave himself

(as follows section 7),

the verse says not only "his sons with him"

(the obligation for the sustenance of his sons),

but also "<b>he</b>"

(the obligation on the master to feed the slave).

6.

The distinction of the two verses

(of Mishpatim and of our parshah)

Rashi already said in Parshas Mishpatim²⁸

— that the section of the Hebrew slave there speaks about a slave whom the court sold for his theft; but the section of the Hebrew slave in our parshah speaks about one who "sells himself because of his distress"

(as it says²²

"And if your brother becomes impoverished with you and sells himself to you").

From this emerges a fundamental difference in the nature of the obligation of the master to provide food for his wife and children of the slave:

When one is sold by <b>Beis Din</b>

(not of his own will),

one adds to say,

that <b>Beis Din</b> secures the needs of his household members.

That is,

that that which the Torah obligates the master regarding the sustenance of his wife is

that a woman does for her husband"&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;,

This is a law on &lt;b&gt;Beis Din&lt;/b&gt;,

that they must provide the needs of the woman which usually the husband does&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;,

and therefore Beis Din stipulates initially with the master that he must give sustenance to his wife.

And consequently it is understood simply,

that since the court provides for his wife's sustenance,

that she can go work and support herself ³²,

is it not all the more so and a fortiori that the court must provide sustenance for <b>his sons</b>³³

(the minors³⁴)

who cannot work.

And therefore Rashi adds "

(sustenance of his wife)

<b>and his sons</b>".

Not so by the seller <b>himself</b>,

where the sale is with the knowledge and will of both,

not connected to beis din,

beis din has nothing to interfere

(obligating the master to give sustenance to his wife and sons).

And upon the master there does not apply any obligation to support the family of the slave

(if they did not stipulate thus initially)

— they have, after all, no connection to him that he should be obligated to feed them; one would consequently say,

that by the seller himself³⁵

the <b>slave</b> must provide sustenance for his sons³⁶,

or they are like all the poor who are in the city.

About this the Torah says: "And his sons with him — ..

From here [we learn] that his master is obligated in the sustenance of his sons."

This is a novel law in the Torah,

that even by the seller himself "his master is obligated in the sustenance of his sons."

7.

With this one will also understand what the verse emphasizes "&lt;b&gt;He&lt;/b&gt;

and his sons with him" — because in the case of one who sells himself,

is also that which the slave receives sustenance from his master a novelty:

There is a place to say,

that the master is <b>not </b>obligated to give the slave any sustenance — why should he be obligated to give the slave more than what was originally agreed that he pays him for his servitude³⁷?

(And it is simple that there is a place to say,

that the master fulfills his obligation by giving the slave bread of distress and water of affliction so that the slave should have strength to work,

but not more³⁸).

Therefore the Torah specifically warns³⁹

"<b>He </b>

(and his sons with him)

" — that his master is obligated for his sustenance

(in the usual manner).

8.

Based on the above, it is understood why Rashi in our parshah does not add "his wife"

(in the manner that he adds "his sons" in Mishpatim),

because the simple meaning of this verse does not speak

(does not say)

about his wife.

And from a logical standpoint in general, one can say in several ways:

By a seller himself,

one cannot learn from "from here" — from the sustenance of his sons — regarding the sustenance of his wife: one can say that that which "her husband is obligated in the sustenance of his sons"

(although

from his own perspective he would not have needed to be obligated in this),

is only because the Torah had mercy on the children who cannot support themselves; but his wife,

who can herself feed herself,

her husband

(of a seller himself)

is not obligated in her sustenance.

Also it can be said: that

according to Rashi's method in his commentary on the Torah is]

the master is obligated for the sustenance of his wife

(even in the case of one who sells himself)

— since the master has a benefit from the fact that the wife of the slave is together with the slave

(as above section 6),

consequently it is presumably that the master himself <b>from the outset obligates himself</b> to feed her —

But as above — this is not a matter that one learns — from <b>his children</b>

(because from the children of the slave

(the minors³⁴)

the master has no benefit,

and consequently he on his own is not obligated to feed them)

— rather it is a matter dependent <b>on reasoning</b>,

Or,

that one learns it from the one who sold him, the court

(only the detail⁴⁰)

that one does not take into account that she can feed herself

(and the court compels the master to feed her)

; and likewise regarding the seller himself,

that the master

(must give her sustenance from the benefit that he has from her,

and)

cannot exempt himself with the claim that she should feed herself.

9.

A sharp student can however ask: After all,

Why is the master obligated in the sustenance of his children?

He has indeed no connection with them and no benefit from them — what is he liable that the father sold himself to him as

a slave,

that <b>he</b> should have to <b>provide for them</b>?

their law must be like all other poor people in the city,

as above.

Rashi hints at the answer by bringing the name of the author of the statement — R' Shimon — who, according to his method, this is understandable⁴¹

Rashbi says in tractate Bava Batra&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt;

: "Whoever does not leave a son to inherit him, the Holy One, blessed be He, is filled with wrath upon him."

From the language of Rashbi it is understood,

that he does not speak about the punishment for not fulfilling the commandment of pru urvu&lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt;,

rather he speaks about the detail "to inherit him" — when a person leaves over a "son &lt;b&gt;to inherit him&lt;/b&gt;",

this causes the opposite of filled &lt;b&gt;wrath&lt;/b&gt; — joy — by the One Above

(And consequently — it becomes filled with wrath when the son to inherit him is lacking).

According to Rashbi, the emphasis is on children that it should be "a son to inherit him,"

"he arose in place of his father,"

the father and son are one continuum⁴⁴,

until — one reality⁴⁵.

And this is also the explanation why the master is obligated for the sustenance of <b>his sons</b>: this is because of their connection to the <b>father</b>⁴⁶.

Just as he is obligated for the sustenance of the father

(the slave),

so is he obligated to feed the "portion of the father" that is present in <b>his sons</b>.

And based on this, it will be sweetened also the continuation in the verse

(and Rashi)

— "And he went out etc., he and his sons with him etc., and to the possession of his fathers he shall return",

he and his sons are

(in this matter)

one entity and exactly like this — he and his fathers,

and consequently — he shall return to the possession of his fathers.

And based on this, it will be sweetened what Rashi explains the plain meaning of the verse "And to the possession of his fathers,

to the honor of his fathers": just as one may not separate the servant from his children,

so too one may not separate the servant from his fathers,

and therefore "And to the possession of his fathers — the honor of his fathers — he shall return"⁴⁷].

Yud.

From the wondrous matters on the level of remez in Rashi's commentary:

The concept of being sold as a slave is a hint to the concept of the exile⁴⁸.

The verse says,

that both the father and his children — both, as it were, our Father in Heaven and the Jews who are "children to the Omnipresent"⁴⁹

— have gone into exile,

as the statement of <b>Rashbi</b>⁵⁰

"Beloved are Israel before the Holy One, blessed be He, for in every place where they were exiled, the Shechinah is with them."

On this Rashi brings the statement of Rabbi Shimon which contains an even greater innovation⁵¹

: Not

(But)

That "Every place where they were exiled

(Israel)

the Shechinah is with them",

But on the contrary — "If he is sold, his children, who sold them?

(In wonder)

It is understandable that the Most High can,

so to speak,

"Sell" Himself into exile,

Because He is omnipotent and consequently He can place Himself into exile and together with this not be changed by exile; but "His children — who sold them" — how can one sell <b>His children</b> — Jews into exile; if exile has dominion over a Jew,

Can indeed by him not stand &lt;b&gt;openly &lt;/b&gt;that he is a son of the Holy One, blessed be He.

Answers Rashbi,

that that which "His children" are in exile is it only their

(and — regarding their)

sustenance — needs of the body — they go through through exile — the minister of the state; but the &lt;b&gt;soul &lt;/b&gt;of a Jew is not "sold" become into exile, heaven forbid,

as the well-known saying&lt;sup&gt;52&lt;/sup&gt;

: "Only our bodies are given over into exile ..

But our souls have they into exile not driven and into subjugation of kingdoms not given over".

That which there was a destruction,

is this only regarding — the &lt;b&gt;physicality&lt;/b&gt; of the Beis HaMikdash,

the wood and stones,

upon which one gave a gentile control; but upon the true Beis HaMikdash,

the spiritual Beis HaMikdash and so forth — upon this "And they shall make for Me a Sanctuary etc. &lt;b&gt;within them&lt;/b&gt;"&lt;sup&gt;53&lt;/sup&gt;,

the Beis HaMikdash that is here by every Jew, a gentile has no

control,

in this there cannot be any destruction&lt;sup&gt;54&lt;/sup&gt;.

One can mean,

that regarding the "sustenance" at least — needs of the body — does the exile have a control over a Jew,

to conduct oneself G-d forbid as it is fitting by a non-Jew —

Says Rabbi Shimon "from here that the master is <b>obligated</b> in the sustenance of his sons": the Above only wanted that the sustenance of Jews in the time of exile should <b>pass through</b> the minister of the state,

but the minister of the state has no opinion whether he should give Jews their sustenance or not,

he is only like an axe in the hand of the one who hews with it;

And even more: he is <b>obligated</b> to provide for Jews in all their material needs,

and consequently Jews also receive in the time of exile children, life, and sustenance amply in the revealed and manifest good.

5740)