Parshat Behar Answers

Behar 5722
Alef.

It is possible that the Sabbatical year is comparable the weekly celebration of Shabbat. In both instances, the individual is called upon to acknowledge God’s Mastery and His Status of Creator of the universe, leading to the conclusion that when He Calls upon man to rest either from his weekly work for a single day, or from his work in the fields for an entire year, failure to comply with such a requirement strikes at the heart of the belief system underlying Judaism. Consequently just as the violation of Shabbat is considered a most serious breach resulting in serious consequences—death, Karet, etc.—so too the violation of the Sabbatical year will have its set of severe consequences.

Beit.

1.  From the Peshat point of view, the initial clause of the verse is providing the reason for the concluding clause, i.e., the non-Jewish individual who was living among you achieved a financial position whereby he could purchase a slave, in this case a Jewish one. If each element in the verse was talking about a different person, then there would be no logical sequence within the verse to speak of.

2.  Although in the initial clause, a “Vav” separates the words “Geir” and “Toshav” possibly suggesting that they are referring to two different people, the concluding clause omits the “Vav” supporting the view that the words are referring to the same individual.

3.  RaShI—“who is also”

     Siphra—“or”

4.  RaShI’s commentary on Beraishit 23:4--

(ד) גר ותושב אנכי עמכם - גר מארץ אחרת ונתישבתי עמכם. ומדרש אגדה אם תרצו הריני גר, ואם לאו אהיה תושב ואטלנה מן הדין שאמר לי הקדוש ברוך הוא (לעיל יב ז) לזרעך אתן את הארץ הזאת:

has two parts, Peshat and Derash. According to the simple meaning, despite that RaShI defines the two elements, “Geir” and “Toshav” separately, they are still referring to the same person, i.e., one who is not native to this area, but who nevertheless is dwelling among this area’s inhabitants. According to the Derash, the two words serve as alternatives, i.e., “Geir”, a sojourner/foreigner, in contradistinction to “Toshav”, a resident/citizen. Since RaShI in VaYikra is interested in Peshat rather than Derash, the only relevant comparison would be between his commentary to VaYikra and the first of the two commentaries in Beraishit, and therefore it could be said that there is no contradiction between his two comments.

Gimel.

1.  RaShI—the Jew sold himself to either to the family of the sojourner (who are completely non-Jewish, devoid even of the seven Noachide Commandments) or to serve the idolatry which such a family worships.

   RaMBaN—even the word “LeEiker” refers to a non-Jew and not to the religion of the non-Jew. Rather than describing two different things, as the Torat Kohanim which RaShI quotes does, RaMBaN sees the phrase as describing a single entity, the root of the Geir Toshav, his completely pagan family.

2.  ChaZaL were attempting to account for the extra word “LeEiker”. Without the word I already have the case that the Jew has been acquired by the family of the Geir Toshav who are likely to be idolaters. Consequently the extra word takes the situation one step further, i.e., the idolatry itself.

3.   The Tora states in v. 48 that the person who has sold himself even to idolaters/ the idolatry itself must be redeemed. One could argue that a Jew who has gone to such a length has deliberately removed himself from the Jewish people and perhaps there no longer is any responsibility for even his family to redeem him. (See Kiddushin 20b, quoted at the beginning of section Daled.) But if one assumes that to some degree this is the fault of the non-Jewish residents, that they were the ones who have influenced him to become so alienated, then this would justify efforts on the parts of the Jews to not only redeem him from servitude, but try to reconnect him to Jewish culture and observance, mitigating the non-Jewish influence that attracted him in the first place.

4.  In v. 39-40, when the topic of the Eved Ivri was first introduced in this Parasha (it is also discussed at the beginning of Parashat Mishpatim in Sefer Shemot), the only release for such a servant is the advent of the Jubilee Year. However, with respect to this last case  where the person has sold himself to complete non-Jews or even idolatry, in v. 48, there is a discussion of his redemption from servitude. RaShI comments on this verse that this must be done immediately because the longer the Jew remains in such a situation, the more likely that he will be lost to Jewish practice and the Jewish people forever.

Daled.

1.  Lit. Throw a rock at the one who is fallen. I.e., Rather than worrying about redeeming such a person, one should in effect say “Good riddance” and forget about him, regarding him only with disdain.

2.  The rest of this Jew’s family is referred to as “Echav” (his brothers.) Regardless of what he has done, he remains a member of the family.

תלמוד בבלי מסכת סנהדרין דף מד עמוד א

)יהושע ז'( “חטא ישראל”. אמר רבי אבא בר זבדא: אף על פי שחטא - ישראל הוא. אמר רבי אבא: היינו דאמרי אינשי אסא דקאי ביני חילפי אסא שמיה, ואסא קרו ליה.

3.  a) Obviously, his redemption cannot precede his being sold, so what is v. 48 trying to say? Immediately after his sale, his redemption must take place.

   b) If the Jubilee year will release him automatically, why must efforts be made to redeem him, particularly in light of his apostasy by having sold himself to such an improper master? Because by leaving him there for any significant length of time, he will be lost to the Jewish people for good due to the unmitigated influences that will be directed towards him.

Heh.

1. If the amount is the legally proper amount that takes into account how much the non-Jew originally paid for the Jew to come into his employ with the understanding that the arrangement would last only until the Jubilee Year, then it is a matter of fairness to give the non-Jew the outstanding amount of the debt owed to him, and the benefit of not only the Jewish servant, but the entire Jewish people, that we have treated fairly someone who was within our power to abuse monetarily, i.e., avoided a Chilul HaShem.

2.  If the society was one that was controlled by non-Jewish law, then why would the court take into consideration the Tora’s definition of a Jew’s servitude lasting only until the Jubilee Year? This is a specifically Jewish concept and therefore we must be talking about a judicial system that takes the Tora as its touchstone.

3.  The Jew who is sold to a non-Jew is more likely to be redeemed early than the Jew sold to a Jew. Since we do not have fears that the servant of another Jew will be corrupted religiously, while redeeming him is an option, it is not a necessity. You even have the scenario of such a servant opting to become a Nirtza when his original six year term is completed, and then awaiting the Jubilee Year for his release. On the other hand, while the Jewish slave is still in servitude to his non-Jewish master, aside from the potential that he will become enmeshed in non-Jewish practices leading to his assimilation into non-Jewish culture, there are no assurances that he will be treated within the confines of Jewish law that limit what his master can ask of him in terms of work, noted at the end of v. 46. Just as a Jewish master is allowed to subject his non-Jewish slave to very difficult work, why would we think that the opposite would not be true?

4.  RaShI sees the Tora as defining the relationship between a Jewish slave and his master as something other than slavery, i.e., a work relationship. So it is not just how to calculate what the redemption price might be, but also the concept of the relationship, as one between employer and employee rather than master and slave. In Halachic terms there is a Kinyan Shanim but not a Kinyan Gufo.