English translation — בהר ב

Sicha b<pg>161</pg>

1.

At the end of our parshah¹

It discusses the laws of a Hebrew slave sold to a Jew — "If your brother becomes impoverished and is sold to you,"

Which includes several warnings: "You shall not work him with slave labor,

As a hired worker, as a resident shall he be with you etc. and he shall go out from you etc. and return to his family etc."²

; And afterwards come the laws of a Hebrew slave sold to a non-Jew — "And if the hand of a resident etc. reaches and your brother becomes impoverished..

And he is sold to a resident alien with you or to the root of the family of a resident"³

("Sold to idolatry itself to be its servant..

To chop wood etc."⁴),

Which includes several details of laws regarding his redemption⁵

"After he is sold, redemption shall be for him etc.

(Until —)

And if he is not redeemed in these, he shall go out in the Jubilee year etc.",

And in both of them it is stated in the verse that same reason — "because they are My servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt"<sup>6</sup>,

"because the children of Israel are My servants, they are My servants whom I brought out of the land of Egypt etc."<sup>7</sup>,

that is to say,

that this matter

("they are My servants")

is a reason both for the laws of a Hebrew slave sold to an Israelite and for the laws of an Israelite sold to a gentile<sup>8</sup>.

And behold, in Rashi we find a duplication in the explanation of this reason,

that in both verses he explained "they are My servants — My bill of sale precedes".

And at first glance,

according to the well-known rule,

that Rashi relies on what is said in his commentary previously,

and especially since both verses are adjacent to each other — it is puzzling why Rashi repeated his commentary?

[And furthermore: in Toras Kohanim

(the source of Rashi,

apparently)

explains only the first verse "for they are My servants" — "the bill of sale precedes"

(on them first)

"⁹

; and on the second verse "for the children of Israel are servants to Me" he did not explain the simple meaning "the bill of sale precedes"¹⁰.

And behold in Toras Kohanim,

which is the order of study according to the law and the exposition,

we find that several expositions and teachings are repeated¹¹

; but Rashi who "I came only for the plain meaning of the verse",

behold as discussed many times,

relies on what he explained previously].

And it must be said that the reason of "the bill of sale precedes" regarding the laws of an Israelite sold to a gentile,

is a different matter

(and a novelty)

regarding the reason of the laws of an Israelite sold to an Israelite,

and therefore Rashi needed to repeat and inform us,

that this that "the bill of sale precedes" is a reason

(also)

for the laws of an Israelite sold to a gentile.

2.

Seemingly, one must explain this simply:

In [the case of] one who sells himself to a non-Jew,

that the "cause" for this is "his attachment to him

(to the non-Jew)

by means of learning from his deeds"<sup>4</sup>,

to the extent that he sold himself to an idolater<pg>162</pg>

literally

(as above)

— there is a possibility to say that the law of "prior document" is void regarding him,

for he became entirely obligated to a non-Jew<sup>12</sup>

(to a non-Jew),

and consequently<sup>13</sup>

he is like him

[and along the lines of the possibility of the slave: "Since my master engages in forbidden relations, I too am like him; since my master steals, I too am like him; since my master desecrates the Sabbath, I too am like him"<sup>14</sup>]

— therefore it needs to inform us that also regarding this slave it is said "prior document",

and all the laws in the section apply to him,

that "redemption shall be for him..

and he shall go out in the Jubilee year etc.",

because "prior document" and he is included in "For to Me the children of Israel are servants; they are My servants"

[and as the continuation of the verse: "You shall not make for yourselves idols etc.",

which is a warning in itself "against this one sold to a non-Jew, that he should not say: Since my master engages in forbidden relations etc."<sup>14</sup>,

as above].

However, this explanation is not sufficient,

for this matter that he should not go out from the category of Israel we know

(in any case at least)

from the commandment of the Torah "After he is sold, redemption shall be for him",

as Rashi explains "Redemption shall be for him — immediately,

do not let him assimilate until the year of Jubilee",

and also from the commandment afterwards¹⁵

"As a hired worker year by year he shall be with him; he shall not rule over him with rigor before your eyes; and if he is not redeemed by these, he shall go out in the year of Jubilee, etc." —

And behold, that which is said "For the children of Israel are servants to Me" is the reason for all these commandments,

namely that he should not go out from the category of "the children of Israel are servants to Me",

And thus, after one knows these laws that he is still within the category of Israel and one must warn that "do not let him assimilate

(even only)

until the Jubilee year",

it is understood that what is said "for to Me the children of Israel are servants" means "a prior lien"

(and there is no need to explain it).

3.

Also one must understand:

Our Sages said

(the first time)

"For they are My servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt" is an introduction to the conclusion of the verse "they shall not be sold as a slave is sold,"

and Rashi explained — "with a proclamation,

here is a slave to sell,

and he shall not stand him on the stone of the auction block."

The source of Rashi is

(apparently)

in the Toras Kohanim,

but there it is stated "whom I brought them out of the land of Egypt on condition<sup>16</sup>

that he shall not be sold as a slave is sold,

another explanation: they shall not be sold as a slave is sold, that he shall not stand him in an alley and stand them on the stone of the auction block<sup>17</sup>

",

that is, according to the first explanation in the Toras Kohanim, what our Sages said "they shall not be sold as a slave is sold" is a general matter that includes<sup>18</sup>

all the warnings in the section, for everything is included in "as a slave is sold,"

and only according to the second explanation<sup>19</sup>

it is a specific command in itself regarding the manner of the sale.

<pg>163</pg>

And it is not understood: Why did Rashi choose the second explanation<sup>20</sup>

of the Toras Kohanim,

and not the first explanation, which is a general matter?

And on the contrary: specifically according to the first explanation it is understood,

at first glance,

the continuation of the verse — "for they are My servants, etc., they shall not be sold as a slave sale":

Granted, if you say that "they shall not sell a sale of a slave" is a general matter,

the reason is understood that specifically in this verse it is said "for they are My servants, etc."

(which means "My writ precedes")

— because this is the reason for all the commandments of the portion

(in the manner of conduct toward the slave),

that all of them are included in this commandment of "they shall not sell a sale of a slave";

But if you say that "they shall not sell a sale of a slave" is only a specific warning regarding the manner of his sale — it is not understood: why is the reason of "for they are My servants" stated adjacent to this law?

And prima facie its place should have been either at the beginning of the entire matter or at its end

(and as in the portion of one who sells himself to a gentile,

that the verse "for the children of Israel are My servants, etc." is stated at the end of all the commandments).

[Ra'a"m<sup>21</sup>

Explains "Since the document of my acquisition that I acquired them for myself as slaves precedes the document of the one who was sold to him, behold, the document of his master is void relative to my document, and his acquisition is not an acquisition, and therefore he goes out from under him and returns to his family as if he had not been sold, for otherwise, what is the reason 'for the children of Israel are My servants'? Therefore they shall return to their families."

And this is that according to the explanation of the Ra'a"m, "for the children of Israel are My servants" is a reason for what is stated in the preceding verse "and he shall return to his family etc."

But from this that the reason "for the children of Israel are My servants" is not stated in the preceding verse,

and even not in a verse by itself,

but rather it is the beginning of a verse whose end is "they shall not be sold as a slave is sold",

it implies that

(primarily)

it is a reason for this that "they shall not be sold as a slave is sold",

whose explanation according to Rashi is "by proclamation: here is a slave for sale, and he shall not stand him on the auction block".

And thus the question is great: Why did Rashi choose to explain in the simple meaning of Scripture specifically according to the second explanation in the Toras Kohanim,

And according to this, the place of the warning "for they are My servants"²² is puzzling,

And not according to the first explanation there, which seems more appropriate to the simple meaning of Scripture?

4.

And one can explain the clarification in all this:<pg>164</pg>

In all the laws of a Hebrew slave in our parshah

(You shall not work him with slave labor,

As a hired laborer, as a resident shall he be with you,

Until the year of the Jubilee he shall work with you)

There is to learn in two ways:

A)

That one who sells himself to an Israelite is not in the category of a slave,

Rather — a hired laborer,

And this is the reason for all the laws that come here,

That he is not in the category of "slave" but only as a hired laborer who hired himself until the Jubilee

(Or until six years if the Jubilee does not occur²³).

b)

that he is a servant

(meaning that his body is subjugated and acquired to his master),

except that there are conditions and boundaries in the manner that it is possible to work him etc.,

"You shall not work him with the work of a servant" and the like.

Maharam and other commentators²⁴

who explained the words of Rashi "his earlier document" according to their plain meaning,

that the acquisition of his master is not an acquisition,

that "the servant or the object sold, how can it be sold a second time; the second buyer has no right in it with the first buyer"²⁵

— it implies,

that he holds like the first manner,

that the content of all the commandments is not only regarding the manner of the master's conduct with the servant,

but that this touches the essence of the acquisition in him,

that he is not a servant.

But from Rashi's commentaries on these verses it seems

(understood?)

that he holds like the second way:

a)

On the verse "work of a slave" Rashi explains — "a degrading work, in which he is recognizable as a slave, that he should not carry his garments after him to the bathhouse, etc.",

and this means that the deficiency here is not that he works him as a slave even though he is really not a slave,

but rather in this, that he does degrading work,

in which he is recognizable as a slave²⁶.

b)

In the verse "as a hired hand, as a resident" the explanation — "work of the ground and craft of a trade like other²⁷

hired hands conduct yourself with him",

and that is that his comparison to a hired hand is only from the aspect of the type of work and the craft that he does,

and not that he is considered truly a hired hand

(as the simple meaning of the verse "as a hired hand, as a resident he shall be with you")²⁸.

c)

The language of Rashi is — "if the Jubilee encounters him before six years, the Jubilee releases him".

And see what is difficult,

In the verse it is said "until the year of the Jubilee he shall work with you",

that its simple meaning is that his work from the outset is only until the Jubilee,

And from this that Rashi writes "the Jubilee releases him" it implies that he is a servant but the Jubilee releases him from this²⁹.

d)

In his aforementioned commentary on "they shall not be sold as a slave sale" — "with an announcement here there is a slave to sell etc."

For apparently,

According to the simple explanation of the verse "for they are My servants" that "My deed is prior" and therefore it is impossible that he be subjugated to another master,

this itself is the explanation of the verse "they shall not be sold as a slave sale",

and it is one thing with "for they are My servants",

that since "they are My servants" therefore<pg>165</pg>

It is impossible that a Jew should be sold as a slave&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;,

and even if he is sold as a slave, the name "slave" does not apply to him, and he is a "hired worker";

But from the fact that Rashi explains "they shall not sell with the sale of a slave" — that this is

(a)

a commandment in itself,

(b)

a specific detail in the manner of his sale

(that he should not be sold by proclamation as a slave etc.')

— it is emphasized that

(according to his approach)

the name slave applies to him&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;,

except that there are warnings and restrictions that the Torah commanded regarding the conduct of the master with him,

and likewise regarding the manner of his sale.

And according to all this it is found,

that what is said "for they are My servants" which means

(as Rashi explains)

"My bill of sale precedes" — its meaning: since "My bill of sale precedes",

that the acquisition of the Holy One, blessed be He, of the children of Israel came first,

therefore it is in His power to command that also when "he is sold to you" and becomes a "servant",

there are conditions and leniencies in the manner of his servitude and his sale etc.,

as above³².

5.

Based on all this, the novelty in the second Rashi is understood,

that he explains what is stated

(regarding one who sells himself to a gentile)

"for to Me the children of Israel are servants" — "My bill of sale precedes":

The content of the portion regarding a slave sold to a non-Jew,

is not in the manner of the conduct of the master

(the non-Jew)

with the Jewish slave³³,

but rather in his going out and redemption of the Jew from a state of slavery — "After he is sold, redemption shall be his; one of his brothers shall redeem him, or his uncle etc., or his hand reaches and he is redeemed, and he shall calculate with his purchaser from the year of his being sold to him until the Jubilee year etc." — and upon this it concludes³⁴

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

And behold, the reason that the Torah commanded "After he is sold, redemption shall be his"

(that one must endeavor in the redemption of the slave sold to a non-Jew)

is understood simply,

and as Rashi says "Redemption shall be his,

immediately do not let him become assimilated"; and what is the addition of the reason "For to Me the children of Israel are servants etc."?

And it must be said,

that what is said "For to Me the children of Israel are servants etc."

[it is not only the reason that the Torah commanded to redeem him,

but]

it comes to emphasize,

that from the outset the category of "servant" does not apply to him and his body is not acquired by the gentile,

and this is the reason for all the details of the commandments regarding his redemption.

[And so it is implied from the verse "as a hired laborer year by year he shall be with him; he shall not rule over him with rigor before your eyes"³⁵,

for seemingly it was already stated before this³⁶

"as the days of<pg>166</pg>

"He shall be with him as a hired worker",

but the verse emphasizes here that "you shall not subjugate him with rigor before your eyes" is not an additional law and limitation on the manner of conduct with the slave "before your eyes",

but rather since he is "like a hired worker for a year" therefore "you shall not subjugate him with rigor before your eyes"].

And therefore Rashi explains that the addition "for the children of Israel are servants to Me" here means "My bond is prior" and he does not rely on his previous explanation "My bond is prior",

to teach that here the meaning of "My bond is prior" is not like its meaning previously: the meaning of "My bond is prior" in one who sells himself to an Israelite is a limitation on the manner of conduct of the master with the slave,

and as above,

but in one who sells himself to a gentile "My bond is prior" is in the essence of the sale³⁷

that no other sale applies to him

(that he should be considered a slave of the gentile)

since "My bond is prior"³⁸.

6.

The reason to distinguish in the explanation of "shtarot kodom" between one sold to a Jew and one sold to a non-Jew — Rashi hints at this in that his explanation of "shtarot kodom" regarding one sold to a non-Jew he writes on the words "for to Me the children of Israel are servants",

and not on the words "My servants are they" as in one who sells himself to a Jew:

"All the land of the Holy One, blessed be He, it is

(for)

He created it"³⁹,

and likewise all the creations in the world are "of the Holy One, blessed be He".

However, in the manner of "ownership" and dominion there are several distinctions and levels, as it were.

And as with a king of flesh and blood,

that although he rules and reigns over all his state, nevertheless there are distinctions between his actual properties

(and within this itself — properties of inanimate are not comparable to properties of vegetative or living)

and the people of his state who belong to him.

And within the people of his state itself there are several types⁴⁰

: the people of the state,

his servants,

his slaves etc. until slaves who are on the level of "a slave of a king is a king"

(in the language of Rashi⁴¹).

And likewise, and moreover than this, is in the ownership of the Holy One, blessed be He, over His world,

that in addition to the distinctions of levels of inanimate, vegetative, living, and speaking,

behold also within the speaking species itself,

even though everything is in His domain and in His ownership of the Holy One, blessed be He,

the children of Israel are distinguished,

that the Holy One, blessed be He, took them out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slaves, and they became servants of the L-rd.

And it can be said that from this is the difference between one who sells himself to an Israelite and one who sells himself to a gentile:

When he sells himself to a Jew,

the sale takes effect that he is called a slave,

since also

(the Jew)

his master is a slave of the Holy One, blessed be He, in that same category itself, and a slave of a king is a king,

and there is no degradation in this

(so much)

to become the slave of a slave

(who is)

a king⁴².

<pg>167</pg>

However, since "his previous document",

it is impossible that the category of first slavery be nullified from him,

and he will be considered only as a slave to a human master

(even though the master is a slave of a king),

therefore there are restrictions in the manner of slavery

("You shall not work him with hard labor — 'work of disgrace in which he is recognizable as a slave',

"As a hired laborer, as a resident — with land work and skilled craft as with other hired laborers you shall behave toward him".

And also "they shall not be sold as a slave sale" in this sale),

all this comes to negate that he should be recognizable and seen that he is a slave of a human being.

But not so gentiles who were not at the Exodus and in the issuance of the document of servants of G-d,

behold, when a Jew is sold to them — this is [as it says] "for the children of Israel are servants to Me",

does not give place for the sale and the subjugation to take effect,

that it is absolutely impossible for servitude to take effect upon him.

(From the talk of Shabbat Parshat Behar 5746)