Answers to Re'eh

Re’eh 5718


Alef.

RaMBaM understands Devarim 16 as a BeDiAvad, i.e., the minimalist approach. Certainly when there will be an obligation for the poor individual to pay back what he receives from the person in better circumstances, the latter must enable the former economically. However, LeChatchila, appriori, it is even better to simply give the poor person an out-and-out grant, without any expectation of repayment. Consequently, this could be considered yet another example of Dibra Tora Neged Yetzer HaRa (the Tora is formulating its expectations in light of man’s baser instincts—e.g., Eishet Yefat To’ar, Go’el HaDam; or the Rav’s comment that Halacha is the “ground floor” rather than the “ceiling”—while HaShem Desires man to strive to be an ultimate Ba’al Chesed, He will “Settle” for him at least beginning by lending money to the poor.

Beit.

1. (Siftei Chachamim, siman Katan Reish) The implication of the word “Efes” in v. 4 is that simply, there will come a time when there no longer will be any poor people among the Jews. However, the “Rak” of v. 5 amends this statement by saying that it is conditional, i.e., only if there is constant lending from the rich to the poor will the abject poverty of the poor be mitigated, but not ever truly eliminated.

2.a+b. (Siftei Chachamim, siman Katan Shin) The word “Rak” is understood Rabbinically  as a “Mi’ut” (an exclusionary, delimiting word). Although “Kaful Lashon” (doubling language, in this case the doubling of the verb Smo’ah Tishma) is usually interpreted as a language of emphasis, or quantity of repetition (you have to listen over and over, even 100 times), since in this case, there is also the Mi’ut of “Rak”, RaShI applies the Mi’ut to the verb and divides the doubling into a cause-and-effect construction, i.e., if you listen even a little, you will be Listened to a great deal.

3. Usually, the promises of reward are within an agricultural context, i.e., it will rain, your crops will be abundant, your animals will reproduce, etc. The issue of wealth vs. poverty and the necessity for the wealthy to loan to the poor suggests a mercantile economy, something that will take place in an urban environment, i.e, Devarim 28:3 “Blessed are you in the city”, as opposed to (Ibid.) “And blessed are you in the field.”

4. Why if you will lend to others is this a manifestation of a Divine Blessing? Perhaps it’s part of a monetary system of borrowing and lending, with you having first borrowed, speculated on the interest and then turn around and lend to another. Such a system would make the lender dependent in turn upon those who lend to him, and therefore not necessarily an objective blessing. RaShI points out that the second clause, “and you will not borrow” suggests that you are not the middle man in this process, but rather it will proceed in a single direction, i.e., you will lend but never need to borrow in order to do so.

5. V. 6 is talking about lending between a Jew and a non-Jew. V. 8 is dealing with loans between Jews. The double language “VeHa’aveit Ta’avitenu” appears to be superfluous if the wealthy individual has already been Commanded to open his hand to the poor. Consequently the Rabbis, reflected in RaShI’s comment, imagine a scenario whereby the wealthy man offered a grant, was turned down due to the poor individual’s pride, and this is now followed up by a Command to offer the latter a loan to which he will perhaps be more amenable.  

Gimel.

1. RaShBaM feels that reading the verse according to the simple meaning, the heart is a “Beli’al” heart, and there will be some Davar with this heart. Consequently he reorders the words to connote that the heart is essentially neutral, and the evil matter (Davar Beli’al) is attempting to contaminate and corrupt it.

2. Before RaShBaM clarifies in the phrase beginning with “Kelomar” it appears that “Beli’al” is an adjective, modifying Davar. But in his clarification, he makes plain that it is a noun and that the two words are in the Semichut construct, comprising an adjectival prepositional phrase “Shel Resha” modifying the original noun “Davar”.  

Daled.

1. R. Oshtreich understands “Beli’al” as either connoting “without Divine Benefit”—from the language “Al”, i.e., above”—or “without benefit”—from the language “To’elet”. This is in contrast to RaShBaM who understands the word as representing evil, pure and simple.

2. In Devarim 15:9, “Beli’al” is defined as a case of “Ayin HaRa”, rather than doing something evil to another, simply looking upon him in an unkindly way and refusing to do him a favor. While this is also reprehensible, it does not smack of the truly negative evil of which RaShBaM speaks in this regard.

Heh.

    Apparently, while the evil of the eye has to do with assessing a situation and deciding whether or not to come to someone’s assistance, the evil heart is associated with the intent when one actually does something. Therefore there is a two-pronged critique of someone who is resentful about helping the poor: a) There are those who will simply disengage themselves from the process completely because their jaded eye does not permit them to undertake any assistance, and b) even those who do make funds available to the poor, they do so grudgingly and in a way that their resentment is apparent to the recipient. This too is to be avoided if one was to aspire to the true heights of Chesed. (Yet, it is preferred if someone does something SheLo LiShma than not at all since Lo LiShma could ultimately lead to LiShma.)