parshat ki tavo answers

Ki Tavo 5717

דברים פרק כט

(א) וַיִּקְרָא מֹשֶׁה אֶל כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם אַתֶּם רְאִיתֶם אֵת כָּל אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה יְקֹוָק לְעֵינֵיכֶם בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם לְפַרְעֹה וּלְכָל עֲבָדָיו וּלְכָל אַרְצוֹ:

(ב) הַמַּסּוֹת הַגְּדֹלֹת אֲשֶׁר רָאוּ עֵינֶיךָ הָאֹתֹת וְהַמֹּפְתִים הַגְּדֹלִים הָהֵם:

(ג) וְלֹא נָתַן יְקֹוָק לָכֶם לֵב לָדַעַת וְעֵינַיִם לִרְאוֹת וְאָזְנַיִם לִשְׁמֹעַ עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה:

(ד) וָאוֹלֵךְ אֶתְכֶם אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה בַּמִּדְבָּר לֹא בָלוּ שַׂלְמֹתֵיכֶם מֵעֲלֵיכֶם וְנַעַלְךָ לֹא בָלְתָה מֵעַל רַגְלֶךָ:

(ה) לֶחֶם לֹא אֲכַלְתֶּם וְיַיִן וְשֵׁכָר לֹא שְׁתִיתֶם לְמַעַן תֵּדְעוּ כִּי אֲנִי יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיכֶם:

(ו) וַתָּבֹאוּ אֶל הַמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה וַיֵּצֵא סִיחֹן מֶלֶךְ חֶשְׁבּוֹן וְעוֹג מֶלֶךְ הַבָּשָׁן לִקְרָאתֵנוּ לַמִּלְחָמָה וַנַּכֵּם:

(ז) וַנִּקַּח אֶת אַרְצָם וַנִּתְּנָהּ לְנַחֲלָה לָראוּבֵנִי וְלַגָּדִי וְלַחֲצִי שֵׁבֶט הַמְנַשִּׁי:

(ח) וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת דִּבְרֵי הַבְּרִית הַזֹּאת וַעֲשִׂיתֶם אֹתָם לְמַעַן תַּשְׂכִּילוּ אֵת כָּל אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשׂוּן: פ

And Moses called unto all Israel, and said unto them: Ye have seen all that the LORD did before your eyes in the land of Egypt unto Pharaoh, and unto all his servants, and unto all his land; the great trials which thine eyes saw, the signs and those great wonders; but the LORD hath not given you a heart to know, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day. And I have led you forty years in the wilderness; your clothes are not waxen old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxen old upon thy foot. Ye have not eaten bread, neither have ye drunk wine or strong drink; that ye might know that I am the LORD your God. And when ye came unto this place, Sihon the king of Heshbon, and Og the king of Bashan, came out against us unto battle, and we smote them. And we took their land, and gave it for an inheritance unto the Reubenites, and to the Gadites, and to the half-tribe of the Manassites. Observe therefore the words of this covenant, and do them, that ye may make all that ye do to prosper. 
Alef.

1.  Ibn Ezra. Although it took all this time until this point for you to reach a modicum of proper understanding, since HaShem is the One Who Set all of these actions in motion that eventually led to your recognition of the Truth, it is as if He has Caused your enlightenment. (There does not seem to be any blame assigned to the people. It’s just that this was how long it took for the learning curve to be completed, an experience which is attributed to HaShem’s Organization and Planning.)

     Abravanel sees the verse in question as interrogatory and therefor accusatory, i.e., Hadn’t HaShem Given you the requisite ability to understand, as well as Made Happen all sorts of events that should have led you to the proper conclusions? The fact that you didn’t reach such conclusions until this much later point is an indication of the immaturity that has plagued you until now. (This view places this section of the Tora squarely in the context of Tochecha [rebuke] with the hope that the people will walk the “straight-and-narrow” going forward, when Moshe is no longer there to guide them.)

     Bei’ur. Like Abrabanel, i.e., Hadn’t HaShem Supplied you with the abilities and circumstances for you to understand accurately where things stood in terms of your responsibility to listen to HaShem’s Will?

     ShaDaL analogizes from Pharoah to the Jewish people not drawing the proper conclusions from the miracles that their eyes have seen, as well as to Shimi ben Geira cursing King David. The commentator posits that whatever is highly illogical must be attributed to God’s Influence. If Pharoah was not influenced by the miracles and plagues, then HaShem was not Allowing him to be. By extension, the rebelliousness of the Jewish people must be of Divine Origin. And Shimi’s seemingly irrational cursing of David is suspected by the King to be emanating from HaShem because it made so little sense.

     MaLBIM suggests that the reason why HaShem in fact had not Given them understanding was because there was no desire on their parts to understand. Only when there is an initial overture from man will Siyata D’Shmaya be supplied to help him realize his desires, in this case intellectual and cognitive.

• a) Ibn Ezra, Abravanel, Bei’ur: HaShem did Give man wisdom previously. However, man did not use it.

              b) ShaDaL: HaShem Prevented man from using the innate abilities with which he had been supplied.

              c) MaLBIM: As soon as man chooses to wish to understand, he will be given the ability to do so.

2.  Concerning Abravanel’s question, i.e., man has had free choice all along, and once the Tora was given, could opt to either act in accordance with it or not,

   Group a) would say that just because man has the capacity to exercise free choice does not meand that he does.

   Group b) would say that the irrational manner in which the people acted suggests that it was in fact not within their control to exercise their free will.

   Group c) would say that while they could have had the quality of free will, since they had no desire to exercise it, they were not given it.

3.  "במוחשות הנפלאות"—the amazing experiences, i.e., the miracles, plagues, splitting of the sea, giving of the Tora.

     "שמהם ישתלמו באמונותיהם"—by means of properly reflecting and contemplating these experiences, the faith in HaShem of the Jewish people would be able to develop properly.

     "ויתר מתייחסים לקנין השלמות מזולתם" –sight and sound are two of the senses through which that which is perceived can assist in developing the heart/mind that the individual surely possesses.

4. 

שמות פרק י פסוק ב

וּלְמַעַן תְּסַפֵּר בְּאָזְנֵי בִנְךָ וּבֶן בִּנְךָ אֵת אֲשֶׁר הִתְעַלַּלְתִּי בְּמִצְרַיִם וְאֶת אֹתֹתַי אֲשֶׁר שַׂמְתִּי בָם וִידַעְתֶּם כִּי אֲנִי יְקֹוָק:

דברים כט:ב-ד

ב) הַמַּסּוֹת הַגְּדֹלֹת אֲשֶׁר רָאוּ עֵינֶיךָ הָאֹתֹת וְהַמֹּפְתִים הַגְּדֹלִים הָהֵם:

(ג) וְלֹא נָתַן יְקֹוָק לָכֶם לֵב לָדַעַת וְעֵינַיִם לִרְאוֹת וְאָזְנַיִם לִשְׁמֹעַ עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה:

(ד) וָאוֹלֵךְ אֶתְכֶם אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה בַּמִּדְבָּר לֹא בָלוּ שַׂלְמֹתֵיכֶם מֵעֲלֵיכֶם וְנַעַלְךָ לֹא בָלְתָה מֵעַל רַגְלֶךָ:

Perhaps Shemot 10:2 demonstrates that the purpose of having gone through all of these experiences was to develop a repertoire to not only convey to ensuing generations, but to develop one’s own sense of believing in God.

5.    RaMBaM in The Guide would appear to follow the lead of Ibn Ezra in the sense that he too refers to HaShem’s Involvement in human history as a First Cause. Consequently it is possible that while the terminology used is that of HaShem Causing this thing to happen, in fact it is the result of man’s exercising free will in reaction to the various scenarios that have been Placed before him. Yet if we take the RaMBaM at his word, then the issue of pure human free will is challenged. If man is reacting to circumstances, and these circumstances are predetermined by the Divine, then at least a dimension of man’s free will is really not up to him. One could imagine how a series of circumstances could back an individual into a corner resulting in his making certain choices that he perhaps otherwise would have never made.

Beit.

1.    Abravanel seemed to be wondering about the issue of human free choice which he thought man possessed a long time before Moshe’s address to the people at this point. The question that Moshe Chefetz and Meshech Chachma are addressing has to do with the taking for granted as opposed to the realization and appreciation of the miraculous conditions that had surrounded the people from the time that they had left Egypt 40 years previously.

2.   Each of these two commentators suggest that when a miraculous situation takes place repeatedly over a long period of time, people define the condition as the norm and become desensitized to the miraculous nature of it.

3.   When a great person passes away, particularly one upon whom a community or even an entire people depended, they only realize how much they depended upon him when he is no longer available to address their needs. It is an ironic feature of human nature that we often only appreciate something when it is removed from us and we no longer have access to it.

parshat ki tavo

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/559.html

parshat ki teze

Ki Tetze 5724
Alef.

1. “Rabboteinu”—The worker should be paid within twelve hours of his completing his employment. Therefore “Lo Tavo Alav HaShemesh”—a night worker must be paid within twelve hours of finishing working; “Ad Boker”—a day worker must be paid within twelve hours of finishing working.

   RaMBaN—The worker must be paid immediately upon completing his work. Therefore, “Lo Tavo Alav HaShemesh”—a day worker must be paid immediately upon finishing; “Ad Boker”—a night worker must be paid immediately upon finishing.

2.  It would appear that in this instance, the two approaches depend upon whether total consideration must be given to the worker (RaMBaN) without regard to any difficulties encountered by the employer in coming up with the compensation immediately, vs. being concerned with both the worker and the employer (“Rabboteinu”) which modifies the extreme position of immediate compensation with a finite time period of a number of hours within which payment must be made.

3.  RaMBaN views the issue of how an employer must pay a worker as part of a greater rubric of according to the Tora how those with means must treat the poor. Just as payment must be made immediately, so too in the case of collateral that a poor person must provide in order to receive a loan a special provision is made (Devarim 24:10-13); Shemitat Kesafim guarantees that there will not be a permanent debtor class (Devarim 15:1-6); Yovel guarantees that there will not be a permanent landless class (VaYikra 25:8-16); portions of fields must be set aside for the gleaning of the poor (VaYikra 19:9-10), etc.

4.  In VaYikra, the immediate context of the verse is not oppressing the poor but rather acting immorally regarding property:

ויקרא פרק יט

(יא) לֹא תִּגְנֹבוּ וְלֹא תְכַחֲשׁוּ וְלֹא תְשַׁקְּרוּ אִישׁ בַּעֲמִיתוֹ:

(יב) וְלֹא תִשָּׁבְעוּ בִשְׁמִי לַשָּׁקֶר וְחִלַּלְתָּ אֶת שֵׁם אֱלֹקיךָ אֲנִי יְקֹוָק:

(יג) לֹא תַעֲשֹׁק אֶת רֵעֲךָ וְלֹא תִגְזֹל לֹא תָלִין פְּעֻלַּת שָׂכִיר אִתְּךָ עַד בֹּקֶר:

(יד) לֹא תְקַלֵּל חֵרֵשׁ וְלִפְנֵי עִוֵּר לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשֹׁל וְיָרֵאתָ מֵּאֱלֹקיךָ אֲנִי יְקֹוָק:

The immediate preceding context in Devarim, on the other hand, is how the poor must be treated sensitively:

דברים פרק כד

(י) כִּי תַשֶּׁה בְרֵעֲךָ מַשַּׁאת מְאוּמָה לֹא תָבֹא אֶל בֵּיתוֹ לַעֲבֹט עֲבֹטוֹ:

(יא) בַּחוּץ תַּעֲמֹד וְהָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה נֹשֶׁה בוֹ יוֹצִיא אֵלֶיךָ אֶת הַעֲבוֹט הַחוּצָה:

(יב) וְאִם אִישׁ עָנִי הוּא לֹא תִשְׁכַּב בַּעֲבֹטוֹ:

(יג) הָשֵׁב תָּשִׁיב לוֹ אֶת הַעֲבוֹט כְּבוֹא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וְשָׁכַב בְּשַׂלְמָתוֹ וּבֵרֲכֶךָּ וּלְךָ תִּהְיֶה צְדָקָה לִפְנֵי יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ: ס

(יד) לֹא תַעֲשֹׁק שָׂכִיר עָנִי וְאֶבְיוֹן מֵאַחֶיךָ אוֹ מִגֵּרְךָ אֲשֶׁר בְּאַרְצְךָ בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ:

(טו) בְּיוֹמוֹ תִתֵּן שְׂכָרוֹ וְלֹא תָבוֹא עָלָיו הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ כִּי עָנִי הוּא וְאֵלָיו הוּא נֹשֵׂא אֶת נַפְשׁוֹ וְלֹא יִקְרָא עָלֶיךָ אֶל יְקֹוָק וְהָיָה בְךָ חֵטְא: ס

Beit.

דברים פרק כד

(טו) בְּיוֹמוֹ תִתֵּן שְׂכָרוֹ וְלֹא תָבוֹא עָלָיו הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ כִּי עָנִי הוּא וְאֵלָיו הוּא נֹשֵׂא אֶת נַפְשׁוֹ וְלֹא יִקְרָא עָלֶיךָ אֶל יְקֹוָק וְהָיָה בְךָ חֵטְא: ס

In the same day thou shalt give him his hire, neither shall the sun go down upon it; for he is poor, and setteth his heart upon it: lest he cry against thee unto the LORD and it be sin in thee.

משלי פרק כב

(כב) אַל תִּגְזָל דָּל כִּי דַל הוּא וְאַל תְּדַכֵּא עָנִי בַשָּׁעַר:

(כג) כִּי יְקֹוָק יָרִיב רִיבָם וְקָבַע אֶת קֹבְעֵיהֶם נָפֶשׁ:

Rob not the weak, because he is weak, neither crush the poor in the gate; For the LORD will plead their cause, and despoil of life those that despoil them. 

משלי פרק א

(יט) כֵּן אָרְחוֹת כָּל בֹּצֵעַ בָּצַע אֶת נֶפֶשׁ בְּעָלָיו יִקָּח: פ

So are the ways of every one that is greedy of gain; it taketh away the life of the owners thereof.

.

1. The first interpretation is psychological. The great investment of the worker in receiving his pay is indicated by the risks to life and limb that he takes in order to deserve being compensated. To withhold wages after such sacrifice and commitment is immoral.¹ The second interpretation is metaphysical. The dispute over whether the phrase is referring to the employer or the employee has to do with who places himself in danger personal danger for Divine Retribution—the employer who fails to pay on time, as opposed to who has given heart and soul to the enterprise, literally identified himself with the entire undertaking, not so much for the eventual compensation, but simply as part of his dignity, competence and self-worth—the employee, and therefore it is the height of insensitivity for the employer not to acknowledge that by paying on time.

2.  The view that in Devarim 24:15, the person who is in the most danger when the employer does not pay on time is the employer would explain Mishlei 1:19 as warning that ill-gotten monetary gains, i.e., in this case keeping money that is owed to another, rather than improving one’s position, in fact consumes the individual’s soul. The view that in Devarim 24:15, we are talking about the employee who is endangered, would explain Mishlei 22:23 as reassuring the oppressed employee that HaShem will Take up his cause and punish the employer.

Gimel.

1.  RaShBaM believes the idiomatic construction “Nasa Et Nafsho El” connotes desiring something. The manner in which RaShI interprets the verse, it’s not a matter of desiring anything in particular as much as endangering one life, represented by the Nefesh. While RaShI does mention that the goal of the employee is to be compensated, the commentator is focusing upon the indicator of how much he desires being rewarded rather than the specific desire itself. Consequently, RaShBaM looks at Devarim 24:15 as reflecting the desire of the individual looking forward to and counting on receiving his wages, something that could be the case even were he not to endanger himself while carrying out his work.

2.  In the same manner as the employee looks forward to the wages that he will receive, so too the Kohanim look forward to the sacrifices that transgressors will bring to achieve atonement for their sins, and from which the Kohanim will be able to eat.

3.  At the end of the day, both RaShI and RaShBaM focus upon the employee who very much wishes to be paid. However, RaShI sees the verse as supporting the contention that the worker wishes to be paid by the degree to which he risks all to assure that the payment will be forthcoming, whereas RaShBaM only wants to emphasize that this is the employee’s desire without exemplifying how this desire might be measured.

Daled.

(דברים כד:טו) בְּיוֹמוֹ תִתֵּן שְׂכָרוֹ וְלֹא תָבוֹא עָלָיו הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ כִּי עָנִי הוּא וְאֵלָיו הוּא נֹשֵׂא אֶת נַפְשׁוֹ וְלֹא יִקְרָא עָלֶיךָ אֶל יְקֹוָק וְהָיָה בְךָ חֵטְא: ס

(ויקרא יט:יג) לֹא תַעֲשֹׁק אֶת רֵעֲךָ וְלֹא תִגְזֹל לֹא תָלִין פְּעֻלַּת שָׂכִיר אִתְּךָ עַד בֹּקֶר:

Although as the RA”V points out, Shaveh Kesef (the equivalent value in objects as opposed to currency) is usually accepted as payment for a debt, the case of the indigent worker is different. If he has placed all of his hopes upon the payment, reflected in the usage of the term “Nafsho” (literally, his life), this indicates how desperate he is to realize the benefit of his labors. If he first has to take the objects that he received like straw and stubble, which animals can eat but not humans, and sell them for money so that he can in turn then purchase food for himself and his family, the length of the process will cause him additional grief. The employer has a responsibility to a poor employee to attempt to make life livable for him. Consequently, the only type of Shave Kesef that is allowed to substitute for currency within the context of paying wages to a poor worker is food  itself, that can be immediately consumed by those who are hungry.

Heh.

איכה פרק א

(ג) גָּלְתָה יְהוּדָה מֵעֹנִי וּמֵרֹב עֲבֹדָה הִיא יָשְׁבָה בַגּוֹיִם לֹא מָצְאָה מָנוֹחַ כָּל רֹדְפֶיהָ הִשִּׂיגוּהָ בֵּין הַמְּצָרִים: ס

Judah is gone into exile because of affliction, and because of great servitude; she dwelleth among the nations, she findeth no rest; all her pursuers overtook her within the straits.

The simple meaning of the verse would be that the impoverished conditions that the Jewish people experienced in Israel drove them to relocate, as predicted in the second paragraph of the Shema:

דברים פרק יא

(יז) וְחָרָה אַף יְקֹוָק בָּכֶם וְעָצַר אֶת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְלֹא יִהְיֶה מָטָר וְהָאֲדָמָה לֹא תִתֵּן אֶת יְבוּלָהּ וַאֲבַדְתֶּם מְהֵרָה מֵעַל הָאָרֶץ הַטֹּבָה אֲשֶׁר יְקֹוָק נֹתֵן לָכֶם:

and the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and He shut up the heaven, so that there shall be no rain, and the ground shall not yield her fruit; and ye perish quickly from off the good land which the LORD giveth you.

However the Midrash attributes the exile to the actions of individuals who illegally caused increased poverty of others, the three cases cited being: 1) someone who improperly held on to collateral belonging to a poor individual within the lender’s own home; 2) an employer who improperly withheld an employee’s wages; and 3) a farmer who kept portions of his produce which the poor had a right to glean.

Vav.

1. 

כד:כד מוֹצָ֥א שְׂפָתֶ֖יךָ תִּשְׁמֹ֣ר וְעָשִׂ֑יתָ כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֨ר נָדַ֜רְתָּ לַֽיקוָ֤ק אֱלֹקיךָ֙ נְדָבָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר דִּבַּ֖רְתָּ בְּפִֽיךָ׃

כד:ח הִשָּׁ֧מֶר בְּנֶֽגַע־הַצָּרַ֛עַת לִשְׁמֹ֥ר מְאֹ֖ד וְלַֽעֲשׂ֑וֹת כְּכֹל֩ אֲשֶׁר־יוֹר֨וּ אֶתְכֶ֜ם הַכֹּֽהֲנִ֧ים הַלְוִיִּ֛ם   כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֥ר צִוִּיתִ֖ם תִּשְׁמְר֥וּ לַֽעֲשֽׂוֹת׃

א. In order for RaMBaN to make the case that the phrase at the end of 24:24 should be understood to be transposed to come between the words Tishmor and VeAsita,² i.e., you should guard your lips to do that which you spoke with your mouth and do as you vowed to the Lord your God (to give) the gift, the cantillation should have placed the Etnachta (which is indicated under the word VeAsita) under the word Tishmor. In that way the original phrase beginning at the outset of the verse would pause and something else could be inserted. However, if the Etnachta is under VeAsita, it becomes difficult to justify separating these two words and interposing a phrase from the end of the verse in between them.

ב.  Paralleling 24:24, 24:8 could also be understood as splitting the words MeOd and VeLa’asot by transposing the final phrase KaAsher Tzivitim Tishmeru LaAsot to separate them and again indicate that “guarding” and “doing” are two separate stages. However, like in 24:24, the Etnachta in 24:8 would then be in the “wrong” place. The cantillation as is does not appear to allow for a separation of VeAsita from the first portion of the verse, which in turn suggests that these are not two separate steps, but a single action.

2.

כה:יח אֲשֶׁ֨ר קָֽרְךָ֜ בַּדֶּ֗רֶךְ וַיְזַנֵּ֤ב בְּךָ֙ כָּל־הַנֶּֽחֱשָׁלִ֣ים אַֽחֲרֶ֔יךָ וְאַתָּ֖ה עָיֵ֣ף וְיָ גֵ֑ עַ     וְלֹ֥א יָרֵ֖א אֱלֹקים׃ 

How he met thee by the way, and smote the hindmost of thee, all that were enfeebled in thy rear, when thou wast faint and weary; and he feared not God.

א.  The first part of the verse deals with Amalek. Then towards the end of the verse, the Jews who were attacked by Amalek are described. From a consistency point of view, the final phrase should be a continuation of the description of the victims of the attack rather than the attackers. Both RaShi and Ibn Ezra point out that we are once again talking about Amalek at the end of the verse.

ב.  If the final phrase would be part of the description of the victims, then the Etnachta should have appeared under Acharecha, thereby uniting the rest of the verse. By its appearing under VeYaGea, there is indication that there is a discontinuity between the description of the Jews until VeYagea, and the final phrase, which now can logically be associated with the subject of the first part of the verse, i.e., Amalek. 

Ki Teze

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/290.html

Shoftim Answers

Shoftim 5727
Alef.

דברים פרק יז

(ח) כִּי יִפָּלֵא מִמְּךָ דָבָר לַמִּשְׁפָּט בֵּין דָּם לְדָם בֵּין דִּין לְדִין וּבֵין נֶגַע לָנֶגַע דִּבְרֵי רִיבֹת בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ וְקַמְתָּ וְעָלִיתָ אֶל הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ בּוֹ:

(ט) וּבָאתָ אֶל הַכֹּהֲנִים הַלְוִיִּם וְאֶל הַשֹּׁפֵט אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם וְדָרַשְׁתָּ וְהִגִּידוּ לְךָ אֵת דְּבַר הַמִּשְׁפָּט:

(י) וְעָשִׂיתָ עַל פִּי הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יַגִּידוּ לְךָ מִן הַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְקֹוָק וְשָׁמַרְתָּ לַעֲשׂוֹת כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר יוֹרוּךָ:

(יא) עַל פִּי הַתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר יוֹרוּךָ וְעַל הַמִּשְׁפָּט אֲשֶׁר יֹאמְרוּ לְךָ תַּעֲשֶׂה לֹא תָסוּר מִן הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יַגִּידוּ לְךָ יָמִין וּשְׂמֹאל:

(יב) וְהָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה בְזָדוֹן לְבִלְתִּי שְׁמֹעַ אֶל הַכֹּהֵן הָעֹמֵד לְשָׁרֶת שָׁם אֶת יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ אוֹ אֶל הַשֹּׁפֵט וּמֵת הָאִישׁ הַהוּא וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרָע מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל:

The problem that R. D.Z. Hoffmann is addressing is the addition of the word “הלוים” in v. 9. Even if the Kohanim will be among the judges who will adjudicate cases, what is being added when it is stated that they are also Levi’im? The commentator suggests that the Kehuna at this point is not viewed as the private possession of Aharon’s family, but rather as an aspect of indicating the special status of the entire tribe of Levi. Consequently, it becomes important to identify the Kohanim as a subset of Shevet Levi.

Beit.

1.  Siphre understands v. 11 as directing the person requesting a decision to attribute any error that might seem to be made by the judges as the error of the person, while the judges must be treated as if they are infallible. Midrash Shir HaShirim attributes the ability to detect errors to the person who has come for judgment, requiring him to accept the decision only when he believes that no error has been made by the judges.

2.  According to the Siphre, the phrase at the end of v. 11 “יָמִין וּשְׂמֹאל” expands the universe of cases where the person requesting a judgment must accept the judgment, i.e., not only must the judgment be accepted if the person thinks that the judges are correct, but even if it appears to him that they are incorrect.

      According to  Yerushalmi Horiyot, the phrase limits the authority of the judges to impose their judgment, i.e., the need to accept their judgment is narrowed to only those occasions where their decision appears to be free of error.

3.  The verse in 28:14 is clearly associating the phrase “יָמִין וּשְׂמֹאל” with an objective error. Immediately after the phrase appears in the verse, mention is made of idolatry, i.e., worshipping non-deities. Therefore turning to the right or the left means deviating from the objective truth.

דברים פרק כח

(יד) וְלֹא תָסוּר מִכָּל הַדְּבָרִים אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם הַיּוֹם יָמִין וּשְׂמֹאול לָלֶכֶת אַחֲרֵי אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים לְעָבְדָם: ס

Devarim 17:11 does not have an example following the phrase “יָמִין וּשְׂמֹאל”, allowing for the possibility that subjective rather than objective judgments may be in play.

Gimel.

1. 

רמב"ן דברים פרק יז פסוק יא

(יא) ימין ושמאל - אפילו אם אומר לך על ימין שהוא שמאל או על שמאל שהוא ימין, לשון רש"י.

וענינו, אפילו תחשוב בלבך שהם טועים, והדבר פשוט בעיניך כאשר אתה יודע בין ימינך לשמאלך, תעשה כמצותם, ואל תאמר איך אוכל החלב הגמור הזה או אהרוג האיש הנקי הזה, אבל תאמר כך צוה אותי האדון המצוה על המצות שאעשה בכל מצותיו ככל אשר יורוני העומדים לפניו במקום אשר יבחר ועל משמעות דעתם נתן לי התורה אפילו יטעו, Mitzva to carry out what they say even if clear they are mistaken.                       

וזה כענין רבי יהושע עם ר"ג ביום הכיפורים שחל להיות בחשבונו (ר"ה כה א(*

והצורך במצוה הזאת גדול מאד, כי התורה נתנה לנו בכתב, וידוע הוא שלא ישתוו הדעות בכל הדברים הנולדים, והנה ירבו המחלוקות ותעשה התורה כמה תורות. וחתך לנו הכתוב הדין, שנשמע לבית דין הגדול העומד לפני השם במקום אשר יבחר בכל מה שיאמרו לנו בפירוש התורה, בין שקבלו פירושו עד מפי עד ומשה מפי הגבורה, או שיאמרו כן לפי משמעות המקרא או כוונתה, כי על הדעת שלהם הוא נותן (ס"א לנו) להם התורה, אפילו יהיה בעיניך כמחליף הימין בשמאל, Need a central source to prevent divisiveness and sectarianism.            

וכל שכן שיש לך לחשוב שהם אומרים על ימין שהוא ימין, כי רוח השם על משרתי מקדשו ולא יעזוב את חסידיו,** לעולם נשמרו מן הטעות ומן המכשול. Believe that HaShem would not Let them err.                                  

ולשון ספרי (שופטים קנד) אפילו מראין בעיניך על הימין שהוא שמאל ועל שמאל שהוא ימין שמע להם:

*Rosh Hashana 25a
MISHNAH. ON ONE OCCASION TWO WITNESSES CAME AND SAID, WE SAW IT IN THE MORNING IN THE EAST AND IN THE EVENING IN THE WEST. R. JOHANAN B. NURI THEREUPON SAID, THEY ARE FALSE WITNESSES. WHEN, HOWEVER, THEY CAME TO JABNEH RABBANGAMALIEL ACCEPTED THEM.
ON ANOTHER OCCASION TWO WITNESSES CAME AND SAID, WE SAW IT AT ITS PROPER TIME, BUT ON THE NIGHT WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN NEW MOON IT WAS NOT SEEN, AND RABBAN GAMALIEL [HAD ALREADY] ACCEPTED THEIR EVIDENCE.5 RABBI DOSA B. HARKINAS SAID: THEY ARE FALSE WITNESSES. HOW CAN MEN TESTIFY THAT A WOMAN HAS BORN A CHILD WHEN ON THE NEXT DAY WE SEE HER BELLY STILL SWOLLEN? SAID R. JOSHUA TO HIM: I SEE [THE FORCE OF] YOUR ARGUMENT.
THEREUPON RABBAN GAMALIEL SENT TO HIM TO SAY, I ENJOIN UPON YOU TO APPEAR BEFORE ME WITH YOUR STAFF AND YOUR MONEY ON THE DAY WHICH ACCORDING TO YOUR RECKONING SHOULD BE THE DAY OF ATONEMENT.
R. AKIBA WENT [TO R. JOSHUA] AND FOUND HIM IN GREAT DISTRESS. HE SAID TO HIM: I CAN BRING PROOF [FROM THE SCRIPTURE] THAT WHATEVER RABBAN GAMALIEL HAS DONE IS VALID, BECAUSE IT SAYS, “THESE ARE THE APPOINTED SEASONS OF THE LORD, HOLY CONVOCATIONS, WHICH YE SHALL PROCLAIM IN THEIR APPOINTED SEASONS”, [WHICH MEANS TO SAY THAT] WHETHER THEY ARE PROCLAIMED AT THEIR PROPER TIME OR NOT AT THEIR PROPER TIME, I HAVE NO APPOINTED SEASONS SAVE THESE.
HE [R. JOSHUA] THEN WENT TO R. DOSA B. HARKINAS, WHO SAID TO HIM: IF WE CALL IN QUESTION [THE DECISIONS OF] THE BETH DIN OF RABBAN GAMALIEL, WE MUST CALL IN QUESTION THE DECISIONS OF EVERY BETH DIN WHICH HAS EXISTED SINCE THE DAYS OF MOSES UP TO THE PRESENT TIME. FOR IT SAYS, “THEN WENT UP MOSES AND AARON, NADAB AND ABIHU AND SEVENTY OF THE ELDERS OF ISRAEL”. WHY WERE NOT THE NAMES OF THE ELDERS MENTIONED? TO SHOW THAT EVERY GROUP OF THREE WHICH HAS ACTED AS A BETH DIN OVER ISRAEL IS ON A LEVEL WITH THE BETH DIN OF MOSES.
HE [R. JOSHUA] THEREUPON TOOK HIS STAFF AND HIS MONEY AND WENT TO JABNEH TO RABBAN GAMALIEL ON THE DAY ON WHICH THE DAY OF ATONEMENT FELL ACCORDING TO HIS RECKONING. RABBAN GAMALIEL ROSE AND KISSED HIM ON HIS HEAD AND SAID TO HIM: COME IN PEACE, MY TEACHER AND MY DISCIPLE — MY TEACHER IN WISDOM AND MY DISCIPLE BECAUSE YOU HAVE ACCEPTED MY DECISION.

**רמב"ן דברים פרק יט פסוק יט

(יט) כאשר זמם - ולא כאשר עשה, מכאן אמרו הרגו אין נהרגין, לשון רש"י מדברי רבותינו (מכות ה ב). והטעם בזה, בעבור כי משפט העדים המוזמין בגזרת השליט, שהם שנים ושנים, והנה כאשר יבואו שנים ויעידו על ראובן שהרג את הנפש ויבואו שנים אחרים ויזימו אותם מעדותם צוה הכתוב שיהרגו, כי בזכותו של ראובן שהיה נקי וצדיק בא המעשה הזה אילו היה רשע בן מות לא הצילו השם מיד ב"ד, כאשר אמר (שמות כג ז) "כי לא אצדיק רשע". אבל אם נהרג ראובן, נחשוב שהיה אמת כל אשר העידו עליו הראשונים, כי הוא בעונו מת ואילו היה צדיק לא יעזבנו ה' בידם, כמו שאמר הכתוב (תהלים לז לג) "ה' לא יעזבנו בידו ולא ירשיענו בהשפטו." ועוד שלא יתן ה' השופטים הצדיקים העומדים לפניו לשפוך דם נקי, כי המשפט לאלקים הוא ובקרב אלקים ישפוט. והנה כל זה מעלה גדולה בשופטי ישראל, וההבטחה שהקב"ה מסכים על ידם ועמהם בדבר המשפט. וזה טעם "ועמדו שני האנשים אשר להם הריב לפני ה'" (פסוק יז), כי לפני ה' הם עומדים בבואם לפני הכהנים והשופטים, והוא ינחם בדרך אמת, וכבר הזכרתי מזה בסדר ואלה המשפטים (שמות כא ו):
 

השגות רמב"ן על ספר המצוות של רמב"ם	רמב"ן על דברים יז:יא
דיינים הגיעו להחלטתם על ידי: 1) מדרש הכתוב; 2) פירוש הכתוב; 3) מפי השמועה ממשה.	x
אם כל הדיינים לא מסכימים, הולכים אחרי הרוב. מי שחולק על החלטת הדיינים נחשב כזקן ממרא.	x
ה' מצוה לנו לשמוע ולקבל דברי הב"ד הגדול.	x
אפילו אם אדם בטוח שהדיינים טועים, עליו לקבל את דעתם.	√
חכם הראוי להוראה יכול להחמיר על עצמו אפילו אם הדיינים אומרים להקל. אבל אם הדיינים דנו עם האדם הזה ולא קבלו את דעתו, עליו ללכת על פי הוראתם.	x
x	צריכים לקבל דעת ב"ד הגדול למנוע מחלוקת בישראל.
x	ה' לא יתן לדיינים לעשות טעוית.

2. RaMBaN says in each instance that we are supposed to suspend our personal judgment and accept as the truth whatever the judicial authorities say. R. Yehoshua never accepted as truth what R. Gamliel thought regarding the sanctification of the month; he simply accepted R. Gamliel’s authority to make the determination, once R. Akiva offered a proof text and R. Dosa ben Hurkanus illustrated the logistic nightmare that would ensue should R. Yehoshua refuse to accept R. Gamliel’s authority.

3.  Even if I continue to believe that they have erred, as reflected in the Baraita in Horiyot, that does not mitigate the Mitzva to follow the dictates of the Beit Din HaGadol, regardless of what I think the objective truth may be. I don’t have to accept their truth, but I do have to accept their decision as to how to act.

Daled.

ח כִּ֣י יִפָּלֵא֩ מִמְּךָ֨ דָבָ֜ר לַמִּשְׁפָּ֗ט בֵּֽין־דָּ֨ם ׀ לְדָ֜ם בֵּֽין־דִּ֣ין לְדִ֗ין וּבֵ֥ין נֶ֨גַע֙ לָנֶ֔גַע דִּבְרֵ֥י רִיבֹ֖ת בִּשְׁעָרֶ֑יךָ וְקַמְתָּ֣ וְעָלִ֔יתָ אֶ֨ל־הַמָּק֔וֹם אֲשֶׁ֥ר יִבְחַ֛ר יְקוָ֥ק אֱלֹקיךָ בּֽוֹ׃

1.  It would appear that out of the three elements that are being adjudicated, a) Dam, b) Din and c) Negah, only the second represents a judgment where decisions must be made to distinguish between competing claims of two litigants over monetary or property disputes. Dam and Negah are ritual issues where the status of Tameh or Tahor has to be determined and there usually are not competing interests. Consequently the Revia associates specficially Din with Mishpat.

2.  The first two three-word phrases have a parallel cantillation with the preposition being attached to each of the first words (Dam and Din) and the individual notes Kadma VeAzla on the one hand, and Munach Revia on the other, serve to draw out the single syllables. This is in contrast to the Pashta Zakef Katan that completes the series of three with notes that are shorter connected to words of two syllables.

3.  The Mercha Tipcha Etnachta by which Divrei Rivot BiShe’arecha is chanted brings together and concludes the first half of the verse with a general phrase the specific elements immediately preceding it, in the end constituting a Kellal U’Prat U’Kella, i.e., Mishpat---Dam, Din, Negah—Rivot.

4.  If VeKamta VeAlita would have been chanted with Mahpach Pashta, then the emphasis would be on El HaMakom, i.e., get to the special place any way that you can. However by chanting these words with Munach Zakef Katan, the words VeKamta VaAlita are set off by themselves, suggesting that it’s not only getting to the designated place that is important, but the effort to reach it is also considered an expression of spirituality, in effect promoting Sechar Halicha.

Heh.

יא עַל־פִּ֨י הַתּוֹרָ֜ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר יוֹר֗וּךָ וְעַל־הַמִּשְׁפָּ֛ט אֲשֶׁר־יֹֽאמְר֥וּ לְךָ֖ תַּֽעֲשֶׂ֑ה לֹ֣א תָס֗וּר מִן־הַדָּבָ֛ר אֲשֶׁר־יַגִּ֥ידֽוּ לְךָ֖ יָמִ֥ין וּשְׂמֹֽאל׃

By chanting the phrase Al Pi HaTora using Kedma VeAzla, the emphasis is placed upon the term HaTora. This implies that it’s not so much about what is taught, although one has to accept what the authorities say, but rather the fact that whatever they say is to be considered literally the Tora’s view in this particular instance. Such an emphasis would not have been created had the notes been Mahpach Pashta Munach Zakef.

Vav.

ט כִּֽי־תִשְׁמֹר֩ אֶת־כָּל־הַמִּצְוָ֨ה הַזֹּ֜את לַֽעֲשֹׂתָ֗הּ אֲשֶׁ֨ר אָֽנֹכִ֣י מְצַוְּךָ֮ הַיּוֹם֒ לְאַֽהֲבָ֞ה אֶת־יְקוָ֧ק אֱלֹקיךָ וְלָלֶ֥כֶת בִּדְרָכָ֖יו כָּל־הַיָּמִ֑ים וְיָֽסַפְתָּ֨ לְךָ֥ עוֹד֙ שָׁלֹ֣שׁ עָרִ֔ים עַ֖ל הַשָּׁלֹ֥שׁ הָאֵֽלֶּה׃

Just as the word Od is chanted with a Pashta introducing Shelosh Arim chanted with Zakef Katan, it is logical that VeYasafta is also a Pashta similarly introducing the same Shelosh Arim, since it is the three cities that are being added.

Shoftim Questions

http://www.nechama.org.il/pages/1456.html

Re'eh answers

Re’eh 5730
Alef.

1. R. Yitzchak Arama notices the juxtaposition of Ma’aser Sheini with Shemitat Kesafim and seeks to account for it.¹ In both cases, the commentator claims that human nature would not feel positively disposed to fulfilling these demands, i.e., to tithe one’s food in order to specifically bring it to Yerushalayim for consumption, to transfer the holiness of the food onto money in order to save it until one has the opportunity to go to Yerushalayim and purchase food there, or to release someone who borrowed money from his obligation to repay. If anything, Shemitat Kesafim is even more challenging and therefore the sequence could be understood as ascending in order of difficulty.

דברים פרק יד   מעשר שני

    ס כב) עַשֵּׂר תְּעַשֵּׂר אֵת כָּל תְּבוּאַת זַרְעֶךָ הַיֹּצֵא הַשָּׂדֶה שָׁנָה שָׁנָה:

(כג) וְאָכַלְתָּ לִפְנֵי יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ בַּמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר לְשַׁכֵּן שְׁמוֹ שָׁם מַעְשַׂר דְּגָנְךָ תִּירֹשְׁךָ וְיִצְהָרֶךָ וּבְכֹרֹת בְּקָרְךָ וְצֹאנֶךָ לְמַעַן תִּלְמַד לְיִרְאָה אֶת יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ כָּל הַיָּמִים:

(כד) וְכִי יִרְבֶּה מִמְּךָ הַדֶּרֶךְ כִּי לֹא תוּכַל שְׂאֵתוֹ כִּי יִרְחַק מִמְּךָ הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ לָשׂוּם שְׁמוֹ שָׁם כִּי יְבָרֶכְךָ יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ:

(כה) וְנָתַתָּה בַּכָּסֶף וְצַרְתָּ הַכֶּסֶף בְּיָדְךָ וְהָלַכְתָּ אֶל הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ בּוֹ:

(כו) וְנָתַתָּה הַכֶּסֶף בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר תְּאַוֶּה נַפְשְׁךָ בַּבָּקָר וּבַצֹּאן וּבַיַּיִן וּבַשֵּׁכָר וּבְכֹל אֲשֶׁר תִּשְׁאָלְךָ נַפְשֶׁךָ וְאָכַלְתָּ שָּׁם לִפְנֵי יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ וְשָׂמַחְתָּ אַתָּה וּבֵיתֶךָ:

 (כז) וְהַלֵּוִי אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ לֹא תַעַזְבֶנּוּ כִּי אֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק וְנַחֲלָה עִמָּךְ: ס

  (כח) מִקְצֵה שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים תּוֹצִיא אֶת כָּל מַעְשַׂר תְּבוּאָתְךָ בַּשָּׁנָה הַהִוא וְהִנַּחְתָּ בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ:

 (כט) וּבָא הַלֵּוִי כִּי אֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק וְנַחֲלָה עִמָּךְ וְהַגֵּר וְהַיָּתוֹם וְהָאַלְמָנָה אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ וְאָכְלוּ וְשָׂבֵעוּ לְמַעַן יְבָרֶכְךָ יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ בְּכָל מַעֲשֵׂה יָדְךָ אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשֶׂה: ס (סוף פ' יד ולכן מעשר שני "סמוך" לשמיטת כספים)

דברים פרק טו שמיטת כספים

  (א) מִקֵּץ שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים תַּעֲשֶׂה שְׁמִטָּה:

(ב) וְזֶה דְּבַר הַשְּׁמִטָּה שָׁמוֹט כָּל בַּעַל מַשֵּׁה יָדוֹ אֲשֶׁר יַשֶּׁה בְּרֵעֵהוּ לֹא יִגֹּשׂ אֶת רֵעֵהוּ וְאֶת אָחִיו כִּי קָרָא שְׁמִטָּה לַיקֹוָק:

(ג) אֶת הַנָּכְרִי תִּגֹּשׂ וַאֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה לְךָ אֶת אָחִיךָ תַּשְׁמֵט יָדֶךָ:

(ד) אֶפֶס כִּי לֹא יִהְיֶה בְּךָ אֶבְיוֹן כִּי בָרֵךְ יְבָרֶכְךָ יְקֹוָק בָּאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ נֹתֵן לְךָ נַחֲלָה לְרִשְׁתָּהּ:

(ה) רַק אִם שָׁמוֹעַ תִּשְׁמַע בְּקוֹל יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ לִשְׁמֹר לַעֲשׂוֹת אֶת כָּל הַמִּצְוָה הַזֹּאת אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ הַיּוֹם:

(ו) כִּי יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ בֵּרַכְךָ כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר לָךְ וְהַעֲבַטְתָּ גּוֹיִם רַבִּים וְאַתָּה לֹא תַעֲבֹט וּמָשַׁלְתָּ בְּגוֹיִם רַבִּים וּבְךָ לֹא יִמְשֹׁלוּ: ס

 (ז) כִּי יִהְיֶה בְךָ אֶבְיוֹן מֵאַחַד אַחֶיךָ בְּאַחַד שְׁעָרֶיךָ בְּאַרְצְךָ אֲשֶׁר יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ לֹא תְאַמֵּץ אֶת לְבָבְךָ וְלֹא תִקְפֹּץ אֶת יָדְךָ מֵאָחִיךָ הָאֶבְיוֹן:

(ח) כִּי פָתֹחַ תִּפְתַּח אֶת יָדְךָ לוֹ וְהַעֲבֵט תַּעֲבִיטֶנּוּ דֵּי מַחְסֹרוֹ אֲשֶׁר יֶחְסַר לוֹ:

(ט) הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ פֶּן יִהְיֶה דָבָר עִם לְבָבְךָ בְלִיַּעַל לֵאמֹר קָרְבָה שְׁנַת הַשֶּׁבַע שְׁנַת הַשְּׁמִטָּה וְרָעָה עֵינְךָ בְּאָחִיךָ הָאֶבְיוֹן וְלֹא תִתֵּן לוֹ וְקָרָא עָלֶיךָ אֶל יְקֹוָק וְהָיָה בְךָ חֵטְא:

(י) נָתוֹן תִּתֵּן לוֹ וְלֹא יֵרַע לְבָבְךָ בְּתִתְּךָ לוֹ כִּי בִּגְלַל הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה יְבָרֶכְךָ יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ בְּכָל מַעֲשֶׂךָ וּבְכֹל מִשְׁלַח יָדֶךָ:

 (יא) כִּי לֹא יֶחְדַּל אֶבְיוֹן מִקֶּרֶב הָאָרֶץ עַל כֵּן אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ לֵאמֹר פָּתֹחַ תִּפְתַּח אֶת יָדְךָ לְאָחִיךָ לַעֲנִיֶּךָ וּלְאֶבְיֹנְךָ בְּאַרְצֶךָ: ס

           14:22-27

(22-3) The easiest aspect of the process is to tithe food and immediately go to Yerushalayim in order to consume it. While it is somewhat inconvenient, if the food last until you get to Yerushalayim, this is an indication that you live relatively close by and therefore there isn’t all that much delayed gratification involved.

(24-7) It is more difficult to take the value of the tithe and transfer it to money so that when you eventually reach Yerushalayim—if it’s not this year, then perhaps the next or the one after that—you have to keep track of the money and then use it to buy food for yourself as well as share it with the poor.

(28-9) Another level of personal challenge is established by the requirement that once in three years, whether you are prepared to or not, you must make the pilgrimage to Yerushalayim bringing with you all of the monies upon which you have transferred Ma’aser Sheini holiness. One cannot defer this obligation indefinitely, but at the outside extreme, can do so only until the third year, when all monies must be gathered, brought to Yerushalayim, food purchased and at least a percentage has to be distributed to the poor.

(15:1-11)

The progression in upwards difficulty is then culminated, at least according to R. Yitzchak Arama’s approach, by having to forgive loans made to fellow Jews. In order to assure that there would not be a permanent debtor class, debts were supposed to be forgiven once every seven years. (This parallels the restoration of lands to their original owners with the advent of the Jubilee Year.) Furthermore, the Tora specifically notes the human tendency to become increasingly reticent to give loans as the Shemitta year approaches due to the fear that it becomes more and more likely that the debt will not be repaid. The Tora warns against such thinking, but apparently the warning did not deter this from happening, necessitating Hillel’s creation of Pruzbul whereby the debts are transferred to the “corporate” Beit Din who upon the conclusion of the Shemitta year, duly returns the IOU’s to their original holders. The reality that there will always be poor among the Jewish people, demands that those with resources at the very least lend (lending is considered more dignified than giving them out-and-out gifts) to those without.

At the end of the day, these Mitzvot are abject lessons in taking care of the poor and unfortunate, and if Akeidat Yitzchak’s premise is accepted, this Is not something that comes naturally to the average person who sees as his priority his own needs and concerns

Beit.

One hint to which R. D.Z. Hoffmann could point is the interaction between Malkitzedek and Avraham.

בראשית פרק יד

(יח) וּמַלְכִּי צֶדֶק מֶלֶךְ שָׁלֵם הוֹצִיא לֶחֶם וָיָיִן וְהוּא כֹהֵן לְקל עֶלְיוֹן:

(יט) וַיְבָרְכֵהוּ וַיֹּאמַר בָּרוּךְ אַבְרָם לְקל עֶלְיוֹן קֹנֵה שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ:

(כ) וּבָרוּךְ קל עֶלְיוֹן אֲשֶׁר מִגֵּן צָרֶיךָ בְּיָדֶךָ וַיִּתֶּן לוֹ מַעֲשֵׂר מִכֹּל:

And blessed be God the Most High, who hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand.' And he gave him a tenth of all.

While it isn’t clear who gave a tenth to whom—did Malkitzedek give a tithe to Avraham or was it the reverse?—nevertheless, the principle is the same. If it is assumed that Ma’aser Sheini was at least in part intended to cause those who have to support those who have not, on the one hand Malkitzedek being a priest probably depended upon the largesse of others (as is the case of the Kohanim in the Tora who depend upon Matnot Kehuna) and therefore Avraham was supporting him. On the other hand, it was Avraham who was far from home, who very clearly indicated to the King of Sodom that he did not want any part of the spoils of war, and therefore was  in need of material support which Malkitzedek may have given to him. Another approach, if we assume that Avraham gave the tithe to Malkitzedek, is that this symbolizes Avraham’s acknowledging that HaShem was responsible for his success in battle. This then becomes a segue and parallel to the second Beraishit manifestation of Ma’aser, i.e.,

the promise of Yaakov following his dream on the occasion of his fleeing from home due to Eisav murderous intentions and travelling to Charan in search of a wife.

בראשית פרק כח

(כב) וְהָאֶבֶן הַזֹּאת אֲשֶׁר שַׂמְתִּי מַצֵּבָה יִהְיֶה בֵּית אֱלֹקים וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר תִּתֶּן לִי עַשֵּׂר אֲעַשְּׂרֶנּוּ לָךְ:

And this stone, which I have set up for a pillar, shall be God's house; and of all that Thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto Thee.'

Yaakov is essentially vowing to give a donation/make a sacrifice to God if he successfully navigates the considerable challenges to which  a life in exile will expose him.

Gimel.
Both RaShBaM and Sephorno agree that some aspect of the activities associated with the Tabernacle/Temple would inspire a sense of awe in God. However they disagree as to what in particular will engender such a sensibility. RaShBaM suggests that the sacrificial cult with its various roles and rituals will accomplish this end. Sephorno sees the sense of awe associated more with the activities of the Sanhedrin in terms of judging and teaching the Tora, a more intellectual and judicial appreciation than a ritualistic one.

Daled.

Sefer HaChinuch sees the requirement of bringing Ma’aser Sheini to Yerushalayim as exposure that will influence the one who brings his tithe to stay and learn Tora or at least send one of his children to do so. This in turn will result in the presence of many scholars throughout the land of Israel (the assumption is that the students will eventually return to their home towns) and lives of Tora will become ubiquitous among the Jewish people.

HaEmek Davar suggests that the point of this Mitzva is that once someone brings Ma’aser Sheini to Yerushalayim, he will be hard pressed to personally consume all of the produce that he has brought. This will result in his remaining beyond the Chag and thereby influenced to study Tora during the time that he is in the holy city, or to distribute the food to the scholars who live in Yerushalayim permanently, thereby vicariously being responsible for the presence of Tora in the city due to his supporting those who study.

Heh.

As opposed to the previous views

      (Akeidat Yitzchak: train an individual to defy his instincts and support the poor.

       R. D.Z. Hoffmann: a custom of acknowledging God for the Favors that one has received.

Sefer HaChinuch: a means by which to inspire individuals coming to Yerushalayim to committing themselves to becoming Tora scholars.

HaEmek Davar: in order to finish all of the Ma’aser Sheini food people would have to remain in Yerushalayim to study Tora or the food would be distributed to other Tora scholars to support them in their endeavors.)

HaAlshich suggests that bringing the food to Yerushalayim would impress upon the individual that what he was eating really belonged to God Who Does him a favor by Permitting him to consume the food. In this manner, instead of thinking that he alone was responsible for creating the food, a fallacy that appears in in Devarim 8:17, having to take the food to a place where God’s Presence is clearly in evidence would lead him to adopt a different attitude, one that would entail the awe of the Divine.

Vav.

1. The two reasons that the text gives for why it is necessary to redeem the food rather than bring it to Yerushalayim seem to not be complementary but rather independent of one another. Being too far away is not a function of the quantity and weight of the food; being unable to carry the food is not a function of being too far away. These are independent variables.

2.  It would appear that “כי” is being used in this context in accordance with meaning #1, “if” since it is not inevitable but merely possible that a person find himself in such a situation. There is nothing to regret as in meaning #2; the verse is not coming to contradict something that had been previously stated as in meaning #3; and it is not providing a piece of crucial information for the topic as a whole as in #4.

רש"י בראשית פרק יח פסוק טו

(טו) כי יראה וגו' כי צחקת - הראשון משמש לשון דהא שנותן טעם לדבר ותכחש שרה לפי שיראה, והשני משמש בלשון אלא, ויאמר לא כדבריך הוא אלא צחקת,שאמרו רבותינו כי משמש בארבע לשונות 1) אי, 2) דילמא, 3) אלא, 4) דהא:

Zayin.

1. It would appear that with respect to the two cases in Shemot, although they are examples of Hekeish (when two different elements are discussed in a single verse), RashI does not feel the need to account for a connection between them. They are merely two Halachot that have to do with restrictions on certain types of food. However in Devarim, where the principle of Semichut HaParashiot is taken seriously by everyone (see fn. 1 above), RaShI cites the Midrash. Once he establishes that there is in fact a connection between Ma’aser and Lo Tevashel Gedi, he projects a similar connection between Bikurim and Lo Tevashel Gedi, i.e., that if the Halacha of Basar BeChalav is not followed, HaShem will Cause the Bikurim to be destroyed, just as He will Destroy the crops from which Ma’aser should be separated. Another difference is that in Shemot, there is essentially an undetailed listing of Halachot in contrast to Devarim which cites many details, if not for Basar BeChalav, then at least for Ma’aser. Consequently there is greater interest in providing a rationale for the juxtaposition of topics.

דברים פרק יד

(כא) לֹא תֹאכְלוּ כָל נְבֵלָה לַגֵּר אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ תִּתְּנֶנָּה וַאֲכָלָהּ אוֹ מָכֹר לְנָכְרִי כִּי עַם קָדוֹשׁ אַתָּה לַיקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ לֹא תְבַשֵּׁל גְּדִי בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ: פ

(כב) עַשֵּׂר תְּעַשֵּׂר אֵת כָּל תְּבוּאַת זַרְעֶךָ הַיֹּצֵא הַשָּׂדֶה שָׁנָה שָׁנָה:

(כג) וְאָכַלְתָּ לִפְנֵי יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ בַּמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר לְשַׁכֵּן שְׁמוֹ שָׁם מַעְשַׂר דְּגָנְךָ תִּירֹשְׁךָ וְיִצְהָרֶךָ וּבְכֹרֹת בְּקָרְךָ וְצֹאנֶךָ לְמַעַן תִּלְמַד לְיִרְאָה אֶת יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ כָּל הַיָּמִים: 

שמות פרק כג

(יט) רֵאשִׁית בִּכּוּרֵי אַדְמָתְךָ תָּבִיא בֵּית יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ לֹא תְבַשֵּׁל גְּדִי בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ: ס

רש"י שמות פרק כג

(יט) ראשית בכורי אדמתך - אף השביעית חייבת בבכורים, לכך נאמר אף כאן בכורי אדמתך. כיצד, אדם נכנס לתוך שדהו, ורואה תאנה שבכרה, כורך עליה גמי לסימן ומקדישה. ואין בכורים אלא משבעת המינין האמורין במקרא (דברים ח ח) ארץ חטה ושעורה וגו':

לא תבשל גדי - אף עגל וכבש בכלל גדי, שאין גדי אלא לשון ולד רך, ממה שאתה מוצא בכמה מקומות בתורה שכתוב גדי, והוצרך לפרש אחריו עזים, כגון (בראשית לח יז) אנכי אשלח גדי עזים, (שם שם כ) את גדי העזים, (שם כז ט) שני גדיי עזים, ללמדך, שכל מקום שנאמר גדי סתם, אף עגל וכבש במשמע. ובשלושה מקומות נכתב בתורה אחד לאיסור אכילה, ואחד לאיסור הנאה, ואחד לאיסור בישול: 

שמות פרק לד

(כו) רֵאשִׁית בִּכּוּרֵי אַדְמָתְךָ תָּבִיא בֵּית יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ לֹא תְבַשֵּׁל גְּדִי בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ: פ

רש"י שמות פרק לד

(כו) ראשית בכורי אדמתך - משבעת המינין האמורים בשבח ארצך (דברים ח ח) ארץ חטה ושעורה וגפן ותאנה ורמון, ארץ זית שמן ודבש, הוא דבש תמרים:

לא תבשל גדי - אזהרה לבשר בחלב, ושלוש פעמים כתוב בתורה אחד לאכילה, ואחד להנאה, ואחד לאיסור בישול:

גדי - כל ולד רך במשמע ואף עגל וכבש. ממה שהוצרך לפרש בכמה מקומות (בראשית לח יז) גדי עזים, למדת שגדי סתם כל יונקים במשמע:

בחלב אמו - פרט לעוף שאין לו חלב אם, שאין איסורו מן התורה אלא מדברי סופרים:

2. א) If HaShem is Blessing you, why should you have trouble fulfilling the Mitzva of Ma’aser Sheini? Wouldn’t a true blessing entail being able to do Mitzvot?

     ב) Despite the fact that there is a possibility sometime in the future for the land of Israel to be expanded Halachically provided that the Jews fulfill the Divine Commandments—see Devarim 12:20—the Mitzva of Ma’aser Sheini appears to apply even before that point is reached. Furthermore, some perishable foods will not stay fresh should they have to be brought to Yerushalayim, even within the original borders of the land of Israel. Consequently, RaShI interprets the phrase in light of the common case rather than the exceptional one.