Kommentar zu Dewarim 15:28

מקץ שבע שנים AT THE END OF SEVEN YEARS [THOU SHALT MAKE A REMISSION] — One might think that this means seven years after each individual loan! Scripture, however, states, (v. 9) “[Take heed unto thyself lest there be in thy heart a word of worthlessness, saying], The seventh year … approacheth [and thine eye be evil against thy brother and thou givest him nought]”! Now, if you say that the seven years spoken of here mean seven years after each individual loan, i.e., after the granting of the loan to each individual person, how can one say, at the time the request for a loan is being made, “it (the seventh year) is coming near?” Consequently you must learn from this that Scripture means seven years according to the reckoning of the Sh’mitta-period (Sifrei Devarim 111:8).

MIKEITZ’ OF SEVEN YEARS THOU SHALT MAKE ‘SH’MITAH.’ The correct interpretation appears to me that he is warning about the seventh year itself, that we make it a Sabbatical [refraining] from plowing, [sowing] and reaping, just as He said, But the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie fallow,²⁴⁵Exodus 23:11. this being the meaning of thou shalt make ‘sh’mitah,’ that “you should rest,” similar to the expression, to keep the Sabbath-day.²⁴⁶Above, 5:15. He abridged the prohibitions of sowing and pruning because He expressly mentioned them already,²⁴⁷See Leviticus 25:4. but he supplemented [what was previously said] to explain that it is a ‘sh’mitah’ of the Eternal²⁴⁸Verse 2. also in regards to the release of moneys. This is the sense of the expression, because it is proclaimed ‘the remission’ of the Eternal,²⁴⁸Verse 2. which is similar to a Sabbath unto the Eternal,²⁴⁹Leviticus 25:2. and all works are to cease. I have already alluded to its secret.²⁴⁹Leviticus 25:2.
Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented [that the meaning of the word mikeitz is] “at the beginning of the year.” And so say all grammarians²⁵⁰Including R’dak in his Sefer Hasharashim, under the root katzeh. that the beginning and end of something are each called katzeh, since there are two extremities to each thing, similar to what is written, from ‘hakatzeh’ (end) to ‘hakatzeh’ (end);²⁵¹Exodus 26:28. of the two ends thereof;²⁵²Ibid., 25:19. in the four ends thereof.²⁵³Ibid., 27:4. But the words [of the grammarians and Ibn Ezra] do not seem correct to me. For “the beginning of seven years” denotes the first year [of the Sabbatical cycle], this being the katzeh which is called rosh (the beginning)! Now had Scripture said, “mikeitz of the seventh year” their interpretation would have been correct [for then the verse would mean “at the beginning of the seventh year you shall make sh’mitah.” Instead, however, Scripture says, “‘Mikeitz’ of seven years thou shalt make ‘sh’mitah’ which according to them means “at the beginning of seven years,” i.e., in the first year you shall make the sh’mitah, which cannot be correct]! And in the opinion of our Rabbis²⁵⁴Sifre, R’eih 111. mikeitz means “at the end of the seven years,” and Scripture speaks only of the release of money [i.e., the remission of debts], stating “at the end of all seven years counted by you [as a Sabbatical cycle] you shall make a release, that every creditor shall release that which he hath lent unto his neighbor, ”²⁴⁸Verse 2. and it is therefore that the Rabbis have said²⁵⁵Arakhin 28b. that the Seventh year cancels a loan only at the end. Similarly in their opinion²⁵⁴Sifre, R’eih 111. the verse ‘mikeitz’ seven years, at the appointed season of the year of remission, in the Festival of Tabernacles²⁵⁶Further, 31:10. means “at the end of the seventh year,” except that “the end” mentioned here [with reference to the release of debts] means immediately [i.e., in the last moment of the seventh year] and “the end” mentioned there [with reference to the Assembly at which the king was to read the Book of Deuteronomy] is “distant,” [during Tabernacles, somewhat “distant” from the end of the year], since he explained at the appointed season of the year of remission, in the Festival of Tabernacles.²⁵⁶Further, 31:10. Thus the sense [of mikeitz] in both cases is “the end,” stating here “at the end of seven years you shall make a release,” and there likewise it states “when the seven years end at the appointed season of the year of remission in the Festival of Tabernacles you shall make an Assembly.”
By way of the simple meaning of Scripture it appears to me that the language of Scripture in its plain sense is clear and correct. Keitz means “end,” and so is its translation [as rendered by Onkelos and Yonathan: “at the end”]. Numbers and every [other] thing have a beginning and an end, and their beginning and end are part of them. Thus when you speak of tens, “one” is the beginning of the number and “ten” its end. If so, “the end of seven years” is “the seventh year” which is the end of that number, and Scripture refers to the Sabbatical of the Land, as I have explained above. The meaning of the word mikeitz is then like one cherub (‘mikatzeh’) at the one ‘end’ and one cherub (‘mikatzeh’) at the other ‘end’.²⁵⁷Exodus 25:19. The purport of the verse here is thus as follows: “at the end of seven years [i.e., in the seventh year which is ‘the end’ of that period] you shall make a cessation of work on the Land.” Similarly, ‘Mikeitz’ of seven years ye shall let go every man his brother that is a Hebrew, that hath been sold unto thee and hath served thee six years²⁵⁸Jeremiah 34:13. means “in the seventh year” which is the end of that number, this being similar to the verse written in the Torah, and in the seventh year he shall go out free for nothing.²⁵⁹Exodus 21:2. Thus the point is clear: In the seventh year — i.e., from its very beginning — we are to observe an entire year’s rest for the Land. Similarly, at the beginning of the seventh year of his service, the Hebrew servant is to go free, for, as Scripture stated, he shall serve thee six years, and at [the beginning of] the seventh year he goes free for nothing. So also, and in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free;²⁶⁰Further, Verse 12. for having said, he shall serve thee six years,²⁶⁰Further, Verse 12. it was not necessary to explain [“mikeitz seven years you shall let him go”] but only to state that in the seventh year he goes free. In the same way it would appear that the meaning of the other verse — ‘mikeitz’ seven years, at the appointed season in the year of remission, in the Festival of Tabernacles²⁵⁶Further, 31:10. — would be in a similar way: “in ‘the end’ year, in the Festival of Tabernacles, in the beginning of that year in which plowing and sowing have been forbidden, this being the Sabbatical year.” But we could not say so, since our Rabbis have received by tradition²⁶¹Sotah 41a. and they provided that the Assembly [in which the king read the Book of Deuteronomy] should be held in the Festival of Tabernacles of the eighth year, this being the year after the Sabbatical year. Therefore, the commentators²⁶²Rashi (further, 31:10). said that at the appointed season in the year of remission²⁵⁶Further, 31:10. means “in the appointed season of the first year in the Sabbatical cycle.” This is not correct for the year of remission in Scripture refers only to the year of rest, to that year which is the remission of the Eternal²⁴⁸Verse 2. [and not as Rashi explained, “the first year of the Sabbatical cycle”], and so also, the year of the Jubilee²⁶³Leviticus 25:13. [means, “the year which is itself the Jubilee”]. Our Rabbis themselves made this point, for they said:²⁶⁴Arakhin 24b. “Is it written ‘in the year of the Jubilee?’ It states from the year of the Jubilee²⁶⁵Leviticus 27:17. which means ‘the year after the Jubilee.’”²⁶⁶This proves that only where Scripture uses the term “from” — “from the Jubilee” or “from the remission” — it means “the year after the Jubilee” or “after the remission,” but “the year of remission” means the year in which the rest of the Land takes place.
But I say thus: keitz and soph are used in Scripture to denote “the end” of any matter, but sometimes they are within that extremity and sometimes after it, outside of it. Thus: ‘umiktzei’ (and from among) his brethren;²⁶⁷Genesis 47:2. ‘mikatzeh’ (that is outmost) in the set;²⁶⁸Exodus 26:4. ‘umiktzatham’ (that at the end) they might stand before the king;²⁶⁹Daniel 1:5. ‘miktzoth’ (from the uttermost part) of the one wing unto ‘k’tzoth’ (the uttermost part) of the other²⁷⁰I Kings 6:24. — all these are expressions of an extremity which is attached to the thing itself and is contained within it. [But the following expressions:] ‘keitz’ (the end of) all flesh is come before Me;²⁷¹Genesis 6:13. and he shall come to ‘kitzo’ (his end), and none shall help him;²⁷²Daniel 11:45. ‘hakeitz’ (the end) is come;²⁷³Ezekiel 7:2. ‘keitz’ (an end) is come²⁷⁴Ibid., Verse 6. — all signify “the end” of the matter mentioned but it signifies a later period, for it has been severed and separated. So it is regarding the term soph (end): It is better to go to the house of mourning etc. for that is ‘soph’ (the end of) all men,²⁷⁵Ecclesiastes 7:2. which means “after him,” for he has died; they are wholly ‘sophu’ (consumed) by terrors.²⁷⁶Psalms 73:19. The work that G-d hath done from the beginning even to ‘soph’ (the end)²⁷⁷Ecclesiastes 3:11. — here the term end is within the work itself. And in the language of the Rabbis we find [with reference to the writing of a Scroll of the Law:²⁷⁸Baba Bathra 13b. “The scribe is to leave blank] about a column at the beginning [of the Torah] and about [the width of] the circumference ‘b’sopho’ (at its end).” The meaning of the verse [regarding the Assembly] will then be as follows: “From the end of the seven years in the account of the year of release, in the Festival of Tabernacles which follows after the seven years, you shall make the Assembly.” And in order it should not appear to them that “the seven years” refer to some other counting, he mentioned that the seven years be [bizman ha’sh’mitah], at “the time of” the release. Similarly, when I take ‘mo’eid’²⁷⁹Psalms 75:3. means “the [appointed] time.” So do all mo’adim (festivals) signify “the [appointed] times.” Thus this term mikeitz [stated in connection with the Assembly] means “after the period [of seven years] is finished,” as he explained, in the Festival of Tabernacles.²⁵⁶Further, 31:10. But [in the verse stated here before us] ‘mikeitz’ seven years thou shalt make a release [the seventh year is] within that number. He did not need to dwell upon and explain this since He already explained that the seventh year is the year of the release.²⁸⁰Exodus 23:11; Leviticus 25:4. And the word keitz (end) here is then extensive, applying [to the release during] the whole [seventh] year as I have explained by way of the simple meaning of Scripture.
It is possible to say that Scripture counts the beginning of the year from the Festival of Tabernacles, as He said, and the feast of ingathering at the turn of the year,²⁸¹Exodus 34:22. and He further said, and the feast of ingathering, at the end of the year.²⁸²Ibid., 23:16. And if so, ‘mikeitz’ seven years [stated further on in connection with the Assembly]²⁵⁶Further, 31:10. means “at the end [of the seven years] and just beyond it.” And he states, at the appointed season of the year of remission²⁵⁶Further, 31:10. to indicate that the reckoning of seven years be according to the Sabbatical cycles, as I have explained, but not that the [legal obligations of] release extend up to this Festival [of Tabernacles].
Now, I have seen of one author²⁸³I have not identified this author. who wrote [with respect to the verse on the Assembly]: “This teaches that we are to add from the secular to the sacred, and the law of release [although officially ending at the New Year of the eighth year] still applied until the Festival of Tabernacles of the eighth year. But it is irrefutably shown in the Talmud²⁸⁴Rosh Hashanah 13a. See my Hebrew commentary p. 413. with clear proofs that it [the above interpretation] is untrue.
Now it is possible to say that what our Rabbis have said²⁵⁴Sifre, R’eih 111. with respect to ‘mikeitz’ seven years thou shalt make a release that the release of money [i.e., the remission of debts] takes effect only at the end of the year — that it is an interpretation [deduced from the text]. Because Scripture did not say “the seventh year you shall make a release” [but instead said ‘mikeitz’ seven years …], it is more suggestive that you effect the remission at the end of the seven [years] than at the beginning. And the intent of [the Rabbis in using here] this term “end” is “beyond it.” Thus a creditor can demand his debt on the last day of the year of the release, and it is not remitted until the night, for thus we find in the Tosephta²⁸⁵Tosephta Shevi’ith 8:10. On “Tosephta” see Vol. III, p. 179, Note 124. that they may write a prozbul²⁸⁶A declaration made before a court by a creditor and signed by witnesses to the effect that the loan in question would not be cancelled by the law of release of the Sabbatical year. The prozbul’s legal basis is the Torah’s prohibition that the creditor shall not exact the debt; by turning over his claims to the court, it is they, the officers of the court, who collect it and not the creditor (Rashi, Gittin 36a). It was Hillel who established this ordinance because people refused to lend money to the poor on the seventh year for fear that the debts would be remitted, thus transgressing the law of the Torah against being callous to the condition of the poor (ibid., 36a). See “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 149-150. on the day before the New Year of the outgoing seventh year.

מקץ שבע שנים תעשה שמיטה, “At the conclusion of seven years you shall institute a remission.” Nachmanides writes that in his view the Torah here refers to the whole year being made into a “remission,” i.e. no pursuit of agriculture either at planting time or at harvest time, precisely as implied by the words (Exodus 23,11)—והשביעית, תשמטנה ונטשתה “and in the seventh year, leave it untended and abandon it.” The words תעשה שמטה in our verse are a variation of the words quoted from Exodus. You are to relate to your agricultural duties in the seventh year just as you relate to your business or vocational concerns on the seventh day of the week, the Sabbath. What Moses adds here is that in addition to being a year of “vacation,” from hard labour in exchange for devoting that time to spiritual matters, i.e. devoting your time directly to matters of G’d, is that you are also to take a “vacation” from collecting bad debts, overdue loans. In Jewish law this is known as שמטת כספים, a year of remitting, i.e. forgiving, of outstanding debts. Any outstanding debts that you could not collect by the end of that year, the Torah asks you to forgive. Ibn Ezra understands the word מקץ as meaning “at the beginning.” He argues that the beginning and the end of something are called מקץ, i.e. every line has two ends, or two beginnings, both extremities at either end are called קץ. Nachmanides disagrees, seeing that the beginning of a cycle of seven years is known as השנה הראשונה, with the emphasis in the cardinal number “the first.” Had the Torah spoken of מקץ השנה השביעית , Ibn Ezra’s commentary would have been acceptable. According to the plain meaning of the text, the פשט, it seems obvious that the word מקץ here means “at the end,” as everything has a beginning and an end. Similarly, any string of numbers has a beginning and an end, Number 1 is considered the ראש, head, beginning of the sequence, and number 10 is deemed to be the end, סוף of such a sequence of 10 numbers. Seeing that, as I explained, the verse speaks about the remission of work on the land, the description מקץ clearly denotes the end of the year, harvest time. The meaning of מקץ is the same as the word בקץ, or בסוף, both meaning “at the end.” We encounter the word in connection with the lid of the Holy Ark upon which were mounted two cherubs, described as כרוב אחד מקצה מזה וכרוב אחד מקצה מזה, “one cherub at the one end, and another cherub at the other end.” (Exodus 25,22) Nachmanides continues at length, but I have decided to condense his commentary. It follows that the words מקץ שבע שנים refer to the beginning of the eighth year, seeing that the end of the seven years had just occurred.

Kap. 15. V. 1. Das vorige Kapitel schloss mit dem מעשר עני-Gesetze. Indem damit in jedem dritten Jahre dieser Zehnte der Armen an die Stelle des sonst in frohem Genusse vor Gott in der Gottesstadt zu verzehrenden Zehnten trat, war damit die Fürsorge für des unbemittelten Nächsten Wohl als eine Konsequenz der eigenen Genussesfreude vor Gott gesetzt und dem jüdischen Gemüte die Richtung anerzogen, die sich vor Gott des eigenen Glücks nicht freuen kann, ohne nach Kräften auch des ärmeren Bruders Herz durch tätige helfende Teilnahme erfreut zu haben. שָמחתי ושמחתי, ich habe Freude genossen und Freude gespendet, lautet der Schlusssatz in dem Zehntenbekenntnis bei jedem dreijährigen Turnusschluss (26, 14). Indem aber die unverzehntete Frucht, auch wenn nur מעשר עני noch nicht davon ausgeschieden, טבל, und als solches nicht zum eigenen Genuss gestattet ist, ist damit von vornherein dem für die eigene Existenz arbeitenden Menschen zum Bewusstsein gebracht, dass er mit seiner Arbeit und mit den Früchten seiner Arbeit nicht nur im Dienste der eigenen Existenz stehe, dass Gott ihn und die Früchte seiner Arbeit auch in den Dienst der Nächstenexistenz und des Nächstenheiles stelle, über die Früchte seiner Arbeit für die Existenz des Nächsten disponiere und von jedem Besitzenden die Heilespflege des Nächsten erwarte.

מקץ שבע שנים, “at the conclusion of seven years;” the rules governing the sh’mittah year do not commence until the end of the seventh year. The reason why this paragraph is appended here is that in 14,29, we have read that we have to care for the poor, the orphans, the widows, and the stranger, and this is what basically the sh’mittah legislation is also about.

Dass mit מעשר עני die jedem obliegende Sorge für die Unbemittelten und Armen nicht erschöpft sei, dass dies ebenso wie die anderen מתנות עניים nur diese Sorge in dem ganzen Ernst ihrer Verantwortlichkeit vor Gott dem Besitzenden zum Bewusstsein bringen soll — wie wir dies wiederholt zu bemerken hatten — das ist eben durch die hier folgenden שמיטת כספים- und צדקה-Gesetze vollends klar, in welchen die Pflichten gegen die unbemittelten Brüder in weiterem Umfange gezeichnet werden.

Dass diese Gesetze zunächst dem Gesetzeskompendium für die ins Land Ziehenden vorbehalten blieben, motiviert sich — abgesehen davon, dass nach dem ספרי in der Wüste שמיטת כספים nicht נוהג war (siehe auch Kiduschin 38 b) — schon durch den Umstand, dass während der Wüstenwanderung, von welcher es לא חסרת דבר heißt, wohl überhaupt kaum Gelegenheit zur Erfüllung dieser Pflichten gegeben war.

מקץ שבע שנים. Bereits Schmot 23, 10 u. 11 und ausführlich Wajikra. 25. 2 —7 ist jedem siebten Jahre als Teil der großen Jobelinstitution der Charakter eines Jahressabbat, eines Gott als wirklichen Herrn und Eigentümer des Bodens verkündenden Bekenntnisjahres erteilt, während dessen ganzer Dauer die Menschenherrschaft über den Boden sistiert, kein Acker und Feld bestellt, keine Frucht eingeheimst wird, sondern, was freiwillig der Boden trägt, allen Menschen und Tieren gemeinsam zufällt. Hier wird nun noch eine letzte Konsequenz aus dem Gotteseigentumsrecht an unserem Existenzboden gezogen. In dem Moment, in welchem das Sabbatjahr scheidet, lässt es uns Gott auch als Herrn und Disponenten über unser Vermögen überhaupt begreifen und bekennen, und verpflichtet im Namen Gottes, dessen Herrschaft ein ganzes Jahr jeder Halm im Lande verkündete, jeden Berechtigten nunmehr auch alle bis dahin fällig gewordenen und nicht eingegangenen Schuldforderungen dem Schuldner um Gottes willen zu erlassen. Die Tatsache, dass שביעית משמטת בסופה, dass diese Schulden erlassende Wirkung des Sabbatjahres erst in dessen letztem Momente eintritt (Arachin 28 b), und dass nach allgemeinster Auffassung שמיטת כספים und שמיטת קרקע an יובל geknüpft ist, so dass בזמן הזה, nach Sistierung des Jobel שביעית in beiden Beziehungen nur דרבנן-Charakter hat (siehe Moed Katon 2 b, ׳תוספו Kiduschin 38 b, Gittin 36 a, כסף משנה zu ה׳ שמיטה ויובל lässt, glauben wir (25 ,4, שמיטת כספים als Konsequenz von שמיטת קרקע begreifen.

שמוט כל בעל משה ידו means as much as שמוט את ידו של כל בעל משה THERE SHALL BE A RELAXING OF THE HAND OF EVERY CREDITOR.

וזה דבר השמטה, when G’d said והשביעית תשמטנה, (Exodus 23,11) the meaning was that you should also have a concept of sh’mittat kessaphim, releasing overdue debts by your debtor at the end of that year. The words משה ידו, “what is owed him as a creditor” in our verse make this pretty clear. [Furthermore, if the word מקץ means “at the end,” it is clear that this verse does not refer to the produce grown during that year. Ed.]

'כי קרא שמיטה לה, in other words: the time has come which we know as sh’mittah from Leviticus 23,2. Proclaiming this period as such is similar to proclaiming all the festivals in advance, hence the expression קרא, as in מקראי קודש. Even fast days are proclaimed in advance as we know from Lamentations 1,15, or Jeremiah 36,9.

וזה דבר השמטה, “and this is the matter of the remission;” our sages in Sheviit 10,8 explain that the lender tells the borrower who comes to him after the Shemittah year has elapsed (and he had failed to repay his loan on time), “I am releasing you from your debt.” If the borrower wants to voluntarily repay the sum he owes, the lender may accept it, seeing that the Torah did not forbid the borrower to repay his debt as opposed to loans with interest where the Torah specifically forbade both the payment of and the accepting of interest on loans between Jews (Deut. 23,8). In the case of the Shemittah, the Torah imposed restrictions only on the lender, i.e. he must not harass the borrower to pay him. The concept is that during that year we must not act as if we owned the earth but must demonstrate our awareness and agreement that the earth is the Lord’s by our behavior in practice. This is the meaning of כי קרא שמטה לה', “for he proclaimed it a Shemittah for the Lord.”
Our sages in Sheviit 10,9 have said that when someone (a borrower) repays the lender what he owes him even though the Shemiitah year has elapsed, the Rabbis will relate very positively to such a person. On the other hand, if the borrower does not repay his debts even though he is legally in the clear, he risks that the lender will shame him by spreading the word that this borrower took advantage of the good nature of the lender and simply ate up his money.
There is a halachic provision whereby the borrower makes a declaration (entirely voluntarily) prior to receiving a loan that he waives his right not to repay the loan if for some reason he is unable to repay it before the Shemittah year ends. We have a general rule that all mutually agreed conditions involving money matters can override what the Torah wrote. Moreover, the lender is allowed to demand repayment during any time of the Shemittah year provided the year has not come to a close. This is why the Torah writes מקץ, “at the end.”
If someone who is owed money which should have been repaid prior to the Shemittah year hands over the I.O.U he is holding to a court of law asking the court to act as his collector, he cannot subsequently release the debtor from his debt seeing that the debtor is already considered as having been harassed, נגוש, so that the Torah’s warning not to harass the borrower can no longer be fulfilled. In such a situation the lender foregoes the right to ask for repayment (personally) as soon as the Shemittah year ends. (unless he had made an agreement with the borrower concerning this eventuality). Orphans who are of age (by the end of the Shemittah) and who are in possession of I.O.U.’s left to them by their father do not need to prove that the borrower had waived his right of non repayment of the debt at the end of the Shemittah year (Choshen Mishpat 67,29). These orphans are considered as if they actually had the requisite documents in their possession (Shevuot 45).
The laws pertaining to the release of overdue debts in the Shemittah year apply world-wide, as opposed to the laws pertaining to the earth and orchards, etc., which apply only in the land of Israel. The Rabbis decreed this in order that the whole concept of the Shemittah legislation not be forgotten during the long years of exile of the Jewish people.
The reason that the sheviit, seventh year, is capable of overriding certain oaths, is because the Torah writes here וזה דבר השמטה, using the word דבר, word, i.e. something uttered by the mouth. If someone swore to his creditor that he would pay him back the loan even though the Shemittah year would occur prior to the date of his repayment, even if he confirmed it in writing, etc., he need not keep his oath (Choshen Mishpat 67,6).
There is a conceptual linkage between the shemittah of lands, etc., and shemitat kesafim (monetary debts) seeing the Torah writes the word תשמטנה; in Exodus 23,11 the Torah had already spoken of releasing land, i.e. agricultural harvests, from the claims of ownership. It is fairly clear that in our portion another kind of shemittah, i.e. monetary debts, are referred to. Seeing that the applicability of this rule in the Diaspora is only rabbinic the Rabbis permitted the פרוזבול, the writing over of the debt to the Bet Hadin, court of law, as otherwise there would not be any people ready to extend interest-free loans which would prove uncollectable also. If someone borrows a sum of money for ten years the lender does not need to forgive the loan in the first shemittah year seeing it had not become due yet; you cannot release something to which you did not have a claim yet. If the loan is unpaid when the second shemittah year comes around, its laws apply to that loan.

Of every creditor. The verse is disarranged, for the shmitah only applies to the hand of the creditor [and not to his entire self] — that he shall not have a hand [i.e., the ability] to claim his debt. Rashi adds the word של (of) because it says ידו [spelled] with a vav (his hand), then we need to explain whose hand it is. Therefore Rashi continues and says, “...of every creditor.” Rashi also adds the word את, to indicate that “his hand” is the object. For without the word את then “his hand” is the subject, as in “And his hand reaches (Vayikra 25:26).”

V. 2. ׳וזה דבר השמטה שמוט וגו Gittin 36 a lehrt וזה דבר השמטה :רבי שמוט בשתי שמיטות הכתוב מדבר אחת שמיטת קרקע ואחת שמיטת כספים בזמן שאתה משמט קרקע אתה משמט כספים בומן שאי אתה משמט קרקע אי אתה משמט כספים, und spricht eben damit den bereits zum vorigen Verse zitierten Rechtssatz aus, nach welchem die Schuldforderungen aus der Hand lassende שמיטה von der den Boden aus der Hand lassenden שמיטה bedingt ist, mag man nun, wie Raschi שמיטת קרקע auf die Ackerrast im שביעית oder wie ר׳׳ת auf die Immobilienrückkehr im יובל beziehen (siehe תוספו daselbst). Jedenfalls wird in diesem Lehrsatz das שמטה in וזה דבר השמטה unseres Textes nicht auf שמיטת כסף, sondern auf שמיטת קרקע bezogen, und dürfte es vielleicht nicht gar so fern liegen, unsere beiden Verse also zu verstehen: Mit Ende von je sieben Jahren sollst du noch einen Verzicht vollziehen, das ist nämlich die Forderung des (dann zu Ende gehenden) Verzichtes, dass nun auch jeder Berechtigte verzichte auf die Darlehensforderung seiner Hand usw. Es ist schwer, einen Ausdruck zu finden, der wie שמט, eigentlich aus der Hand lassen, ebenso auf Schuldenerlass, wie auf Bodenrast und Güterentlassung passend wäre.

וזה דבר השמטה, “this shall be the nature of the remission;” our sages in tractate Gittin, folio 37 state that this wording is the source of the rule that if a borrower comes to the lender in the sh’mittah year offering to pay back what he had borrowed, the lender has to decline by saying: “I remit the debt.” A similar rule applies to when a person guilty of having killed someone unintentionally comes to the gates of a city of refuge asking for entry he has to say: I have killed someone.” This too is derived from the wording: וזה דבר הרוצח, “this is the nature of the law concerning an unintentional killer;” (Compare Deuteronomy 19,4). The Jerusalem Talmud in tractate Makkot, chapter 2, halachah 6, adds that if someone had shown that he has complete mastery of one tract of the Talmud, and he is praised as if he had mastered two tractates, he is obliged to respond that he has mastered only a single tractate.

וזה דבר השמיטה, “and this is the manner of the sh’mittah, release;” this year even releases a person from fulfilling an undertaking confirmed by an oath. If a person had undertaken to do something for his fellow and confirmed it by an oath, the advent of the end of the last day of the sh’mittah year releases him from it if he had not made good on his promise until then. (B’chor shor)

כל בעל wie בעל הבית (Schmot 32, 7), בעל דברים (daselbst 24, 14). בעל משפטי (Jes.50, 5), ולקח בעליו (Schmot 22, 10). אל תמנע טוב מבעליו (Prov. 3, 27) u. f.

שמוט כל בעל משה ידו, “every creditor shall release that which he has lent;” only loans are released, not proceeds from a robbery or something given to keep in trust. (Sifri)

משה ידוso: משא כל יד(Nehemias 10, 32). Wir haben bereits zu Schmot 22. 24 aus der Grundbedeutung der Wurzel נשה entwickelt, wie sie der Ausdruck für eine unbefriedigte Forderung ist. In dem Moment der Schuldkontrahierung wird der Gläubiger noch nicht נושה, er wird es erst in dem Augenblicke, in welchem er bereits die Befriedigung seiner Forderung zu erwarten hat. משה ידו אשר ישה ברעהו sind hier somit alle vor Schluss des siebten Jahres bereits fällig gewesenen Schuldforderungen. Also zunächst מלוה, Darlehensforderungen, deren Verfallzeit nicht ausdrücklich über diesen Termin hinaus festgesetzt ist, und auch alle aus anderen Geschäftsverträgen herrührenden Forderungen, sobald sie den Darlehensschuldcharakter bekommen, זקפן עליו במלוה, d. h. sobald sie dem Verpflichteten als zu befriedigende Schuld notiert sind (z. B. הקפת חנות Ladenschulden, die der Verkäufer gerne erst zu einer größeren Summe auflaufen lässt, erst אם עשאה מלוה, wenn er sie ihm zu einem Schuldposten zusammengerechnet oder — nach andern, Kaufschulden, sobald sie bis zu einem Zahlungstermin gestundet worden; Schewiith 10, 1; Mackot 3 b; — siehe 14 ,67 ח׳׳מ und ב׳׳ח daselbst).

לא יגוש, “he (the creditor) shall not exact it.” Why does this have to be added? The Torah has already asked the creditor to release the debtor from his indebtedness, if he had been unable to repay him. Imagine the following scenario: a debtor, who owns a field, has dutifully released the seventh year’s crop to fulfill G-d’s commandment, as a result of which has no crop of his own to sell and to use the proceeds to repay his loan to his creditor. During normal years he would not have had a problem to repay his loan. If the creditor now presses the debtor to repay him what he owes him, but adds that he will gladly wait until after next year’s crop has ripened for the debtor to repay him, this is forbidden. The Torah forbids the creditor to extend the terms of the loan. This would not be fulfilling the Torah’s law of: “release it!” This is the meaning of the term: מקרא קודש in Leviticus 23,7 and elsewhere.

לא יגש וגו׳. Wenn über eine fällige Schuld der Schluss des Sabbatjahres hingegangen, so darf der Gläubiger sie nicht mehr einfordern, denn קרא שמיטה לה׳, mit dem Schluss des שביעית-Jahres hat er Gott gegenüber, um Gottes Forderung zu genügen und Gott als den eigentlichen wirklichen Herrn und Eigner aller Güter zu bezeugen, den Erlass aller bis dahin fällig gewordenen Schuldforderungen ausgesprochen.

כי קרא שמטה, “Time is of the essence in this legislation.”

Es ist aber dieser Erlass, eigentlich ja dieses "Aus-der-Hand-fahrenlassen" der Schuldforderungen, nur ein einseitiges. Der Gläubiger, der בעל, der durch den Rechtsanspruch an den Nächsten dessen übergeordneter Machthaber gewesen, verzichtet für immer auf die Geltendmachung dieses Rechts. Allein der Schuldner bleibt ihm für immer moralisch verpflichtet, und wenn dieser ihm freiwillig die Tilgung seiner Schuld anbietet, so hat der Gläubiger allerdings durch die Erklärung משמט אני ihm die שמיטה- Vergünstigung zu Gebote zu stellen. Beharrt gleichwohl der Schuldner auf der Schulderstattung, so darf der Gläubiger sie nehmen. Ja, es ist gar nicht die Tendenz des Gesetzes, begüterte Schuldner von der moralischen Pflicht der Tilgung ihrer Rechtsverbindlichkeiten zu entheben, und von begüterten Schuldnern darf der Gläubiger erwarten (es ist dies das: ותלי ליה Gittin 37 b; — siehe רא׳׳ש daselbst), dass sie von der ihnen freigestellten שמיטה-Vergünstigung keinen Gebrauch machen werden. המחזיר חוב בשביעית יאמר לו משמט אני אמר לו אעפ׳׳י כן יקבל ממנו שנאמר וזה דבר השמטה וגו׳ )שביעית ׳י׳ ח). Die von dem Gläubiger abzugebende שמיטה-Erklärung ist die Forderung des Gesetzes; allein das Verhältnis des Schuldners bleibt davon unberührt und unterscheidet sich darin שביעית von רבית, welches ebenso dem Schuldner das Zinsgeben, wie dem Gläubiger das Zinsnehmen verbietet. Der Schuldner, der daher selbst eine durch שמיטה erlassene Schuld als freiwillige Leistung erstattet, handelt nur im wahren Sinne des Gesetzes, המחזיר חוב בשביעית רוח הכמים נוחה ממנו (daselbst ׳ט).

Es ist aus dem Titel רעהו und אחיו, dass das שמיטה sein לא יגש ausspricht: לא יגש את רעהו ואת אחיו. Der mit dem Schabbatjahr mit realster Rechtskonsequenz לל in die sozialen Verhältnisse eintretende Gottesgedanke will bei dessen Scheiden uns alle wieder als רעים und אחים zu einander gestellt wissen, legt daher als רעים das Aufblühen des Nächstenglückes einem jeden an das eigene Herz und fordert die Lösung der Schuldfesseln, die überall sonst dauernd die freie Entfaltung der Erwerbskräfte unterbinden. Mit jeder zurückgelegten שמיטה-Periode bleiben alle bis dahin kontrahierten Schulden einem jeden nur moralische Verpflichtungen, deren Lösung nach Umfang und Zeit dem eigenen Ermessen des Verpflichteten anheimgegeben ist, der eben durch das Vertrauen, welches das Gesetz ihm schenkt, statt von Schuldenlast gedrückt, sich moralisch gehoben fühlen und die "freie" Lösung einer einmal eingegangenen Verbindlichkeit sich zur Ehrensache machen wird. Der Titel רֶעַ sagt dem Berechtigten wie dem Verpflichteten, was von ihm erwartet wird, und es ist Gott, ihrer aller Vater, der in der Betätigung solcher Gesinnungen sie als seine Kinder, als אחים, als Brüder im Hause Seiner Waltung erkennen will (siehe Wajikra S. 400 u. f.).

את הנכרי תגוש OF ANY ALIEN THOU MAYEST EXACT IT AGAIN — This implies a positive command (Sifrei Devarim 113:1).

OF AN ALIEN ‘TIGOS’ (THOU MAYEST EXACT IT). “This constitutes a positive commandment.” Thus is Rashi’s language quoting the Sifre.²⁸⁷Sifre, R’eih 113. The meaning thereof is that there is a positive commandment with respect to your brother [that you are not to exact the debt from him after it was cancelled by the Sabbatical year, the reasoning being as follows]: of an ‘alien’ thou mayest exact it, but not from your brother, and a negative commandment derived from a positive commandment carries the force of a positive commandment.²⁸⁸Ramban thus differs with Rashi in his interpretation of the Sifre. Rashi understood it to be a positive commandment to exact the debt from the heathen. Ramban argues that whether one exacts payment of his claim from a heathen is wholly a matter of choice. He explains the dictum of the Sifre as follows: Scripture explicitly ordained a prohibition against exacting a debt from an Israelite [he shall not exact it of his neighbor and his brother]. Now, by Scripture stating of an alien thou shalt exact it, we infer that one may not exact it from an Israelite, and since a negative commandment that is derived by implication from a positive commandment has the force of the positive injunction from which it is derived — it follows that he, who exacts it from an Israelite, violates both an explicit negative commandment and an implied positive commandment. This is the intent of the Sifre, but not as stated by Rashi that there is a positive commandment to exact it from the heathen. See “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 150-151, where Rashi’s position coincides with that of Rambam, and Ramban differs with him. And because we have been taught there [in the Sifre]: “He shall not exact it [of his neighbor and his brother]²⁸⁹Verse 2. — it is a negative commandment upon him,” therefore the Rabbis again taught: “Of an alien thou shalt exact it — this is a positive commandment,” [not to exact the debt from a brother] meaning to say that he who exacts the debt from his brother violates both a positive commandment and a negative commandment.
In the same way the Rabbis have said there:²⁹⁰Sifre, Ki Theitzei 263. “Unto an alien ‘thashich’ (mayest thou lend upon interest)²⁹¹Further, 23:21. — it is a positive commandment. But unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon interest²⁹¹Further, 23:21. — this is a negative commandment.” This, too, is as we have explained [that the meaning of the Sifre is] that there is a positive commandment with respect to your brother not to lend him on interest, and so did Rashi explain there,²⁹¹Further, 23:21. but not that there is any commandment to lend an alien on interest. It is so indicated from the Gemara of the Chapter “What is usury?”²⁹²Baba Metzia 70b.
Now Harav Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon made both of them actual commandments — to exact debts from an alien²⁹³See “The Commandments,” Vol. I, Positive Commandment 142. and to lend him upon interest.²⁹⁴Ibid., Positive Commandment 198. He erred regarding these texts taught in the Sifre. Such expressions are common there [in the Sifre] in many places, as for example;²⁹⁵Sifre, R’eih 103. “Of all clean fowls ye may eat²⁹⁶Above, 14:20. — it is a positive commandment. And all winged swarming things are unclean; they shall not be eaten²⁹⁷Ibid., Verse 19. — this is a negative commandment.”²⁹⁸Here too, the teaching conveyed by the Sifre is that he who eats an unclean fowl violates both an explicit negative commandment, and an implied negative commandment derived from an affirmative statement. Such an implied negative commandment has the force of the positive injunction from which it is derived. Thus, of all clean fowl ye may eat, implies that you may not eat unclean fowl. Similarly the Rabbis mentioned in the Sifra²⁹⁹Torah Kohanim, Shemini 3:2. and in the Sifre:³⁰⁰Sifre, R’eih 101. “These are the beasts which ye may eat³⁰¹Above, 14:4. — it is a positive commandment.” But the matter is clear [as I have explained it].

את הנכרי תגוש, “You may “dun” the gentile (who owes you money) for repayment.” According to Rashi, based on Sifri 113 this is a positive commandment, i. e this positive commandment applies only in your dealing with the gentiles, not in your dealings with fellow Jews who are considered as your brothers. This is an example [i.e. not to dun fellow Jews, Ed.] of a negative commandment not spelled out but arrived at by deductive reasoning from a positive commandment that has been spelled out. It means that if you “dun” a fellow Jew you have violated both a positive and a negative commandment simultaneously. According to Maimonides (positive commandment #142) both commandments are viewed as positive commandments, i.e. remitting loans that are past due to fellow Jews, and insisting on repayment on loans made to gentiles, just as it is a positive commandment to charge a gentile interest on loans extended to him.

ואשר יהיה לך את אחיך תשמט ידך, “whatever you have a claim on, if it is in the possession of your brother, remit it.” Sifri Re'ey 113 infers from the wording “if it is in the possession of your brother” that when your brother has a claim on something which is in your possession, i.e. you have a pawn belonging to the borrower in your control, this law does not apply, i.e. you do not have to release it to him as part of the shemittah legislation.

V. 3. ולא של אחיך בידך :ואשר יהיה לך את אחיך, der שמיטה-Erlass bezieht sich nur auf Schuldforderungen, deren Leistung in Händen des Schuldners beruht, nicht aber, wenn der Gläubiger dafür bereits Sicherheit in Händen hat, מכאן אתה אומר המלוה על המשכון אין שמיטה משמטת. (Sifri, B. M. 48 b).

את הנכרי, “the gentile debtor, who is allowed to grow crops during that year and sell them, and is therefore able to repay his debts, him you may exact repayment from during that year.

שמיטת כספים ist nur ein ergänzendes Glied der großen Jobelinstitution, deren große Bedeutsamkeit wir bereits zu Wajikra 25, 8 f. entwickelt (siehe S. 564 f. das.). Wie, so lange das Jobel in Kraft war, sich dessen freimachende Kraft auch auf die außer Landes wohnenden Glieder der Nation erstreckte, so war auch das vom Jobel bedingte שמיטת כספים-Gesetz zur Zeit seiner gesetzlichen Geltung im Lande auch für die Glieder der Nation im Auslande מן התורה wirksam (Kiduschin 38 b), und wird daher diese Ausdehnung der שמיטה-Wirkung auch auf die im Ausland vorhandenen Glieder der Nation in dem wiederholten ׳כי קרא שמטה לד angedeutet gefunden. Nachdem durch ׳וזה דבר השמטה שמוט וגו zuerst שמטת כספים an שמטת קרקע als dadurch bedingt und dessen Konsequenz gebunden worden, wird durch ׳כי קרא שמטה לד die שמטה-Institution als eine persönliche selbständige Verpflichtung wiederholt und damit die Bedingtheit der שמטת כספים von שמטת קרקע nur zeitlich, nicht aber auch räumlich aufzufassen bestimmt. וזה דבר השמטה שמוט בשתי שמיטות הכתוב מדבר אחת שמיטת קרקע ואחת שמיטת כספים בזמן שאתה משמט קרקע אתה משמט כספים בזמן שאין אתה משמט קרקע אי אתה משמט כספים ואימא במקום שאתה משמט קרקע אתה משמט ׳כספים ובמקום שאין אתה משמט קרקע אין אתה משמט כספים ת׳׳ל כי קרא שמטה לד מכל מקום (siehe zu V. 2).

את אחיך תשמוט ידך, “what is your brother’s you must not exact from him.”There is an exception to this rule when the creditor in question has deposited the loan agreement with a Jewish court, and he charges the court with collecting the debt from the debtor, as if the debt were owed to the court. In this way a debtor who is able to repay but hides behind this legislation to procrastinate repayment until the end of this year will not benefit by his insincerity. He will prefer to repay the creditor and not ruin his reputation as a potential borrower. This system known as prusbol, was introduced by Hillel, as otherwise lenders would simply not extend loans to indigent borrowers who did not either put up a security or pay interest, which it is forbidden for a Jew to charge a fellow Jew.

אפס כי לא יהיה בך אביון HOWBEIT THERE SHALL BE NO NEEDY AMONG YOU — But further on (v. 11) it states, “For the needy shall never cease out of the land”! But the explanation is: When you do the will of the Omnipresent the needy will be amongst the others and not amongst you, if, however, you do not the will of the Omnipresent, the needy will be amongst you (Sifrei Devarim 114:1).

אפס כי לא יהיה בך אביון, even though I have said that you must forgive overdue debts, the fact is that there will be no need for this commandment to apply in practice as there will not be anyone in that kind of need. There can hardly be a question that during all the years when Joshua was the leader of the people this promise applied and no one was in need of having past due debts forgiven. We have it on irrefutable authority that as long as Joshua and the elders of his generation were alive the Jewish people kept the Torah in an exemplary fashion. (Joshua 24,31)

אפס כי לא יהיה בך אביון, if you observe the sh’mittah regulations meticulously, G’d will recompense you.

VV. 4 u. 5. ׳אפס כי וגו. Vorgehend ist der Fall vorausgesetzt, dass einer dem andern verschuldet worden und seinen Verbindlichkeiten nicht zur rechten Zeit nachkommen konnte, so dass er nur gerichtlich dazu würde angehalten werden müssen, ein Verschuldungszustand, dessen Fortdauer eben die Schemitainstitution begegnen soll. Auf diese Voraussetzung blickt unser Vers hin und bemerkt: אביון .אפס כי לא יהיה בך אביון von אבה sich dem Willen eines andern fügen, bezeichnet ganz eigentlich den Zustand sozialer Unselbständigkeit, in welche der unvermögende Schuldner seinem Gläubiger gegenüber gerät. Der Gläubiger hat seine Zukunft in Händen, kann jeden Augenblick sein Recht gegen ihn geltend machen, der Schuldner verliert ihm gegenüber alle Selbständigkeit, "muss ihm in allem zu Willen sein" um sich seine Gunst zu erhalten. Es ist dies eben jenes unglückselige Verhältnis, welches in anderen Kreisen so manches Staatenheil untergraben hat. Darin unterscheidet sich אביון von עני .עני, von ענה, bezeichnet die Abhängigkeit der Existenz, אביון die daraus hervorgehende Abhängigkeit des Willens. Der mittellose Arbeiter kann sich durch Arbeit sein tägliches Brot verdienen und bleibt dabei in seiner männlichen Selbständigkeit völlig unverletzt. Und selbst Almosen empfangend bleibt diese Selbständigkeit noch in weit höherem Grade aufrecht und schwindet wahrhaft erst mit ungelöster Verbindlichkeit. Eine solche zu Abhängigkeit und Unterwürfigkeit führende Armut, soll, heißt es nun hier, in dem unter Gottes Leitung und Gottes Segen aufblühenden jüdischen Staate eigentlich nicht aufkommen. איש תחת גפנו ותחת תאנתו, "jeder unter seinem Weinstock und seinem Feigenbaum" ist allerdings das (Micha 4. 4) der Gesamtmenschheit einst winkende Ideal, das aber unter Gottes Führung zu allererst im jüdischen Gottesstaate seine Verwirklichung hatte finden sollen. Allein die Erreichung dieses Ideals ist eben an die volle Verwirklichung des göttlichen Gesetzes und insbesondere eben dieser Schemita- und Jobelgesetze und des im folgenden sich ihnen anschließenden Zedakagesetzes geknüpft, die Gott als Bedingung seiner steten Jobelregenerierung des jüdisch-nationalen Staatskörpers gesetzt (siehe zu Wajikra 25, 10 u. 11) und eben die Herbeiführung dieses Ideals hat כל המצוה הזאת אשר אנכי מצוך היום im Auge.

אפס כי לא יהיה בך אביון, “there will be no destitute among you;” this is the Torah’s promise if the people of Israel will meticulously observe the sh’mittah and yovel year legislation. [The latter occurs only once in 50 years. Ed.] The reason that is so is that the poor who had felt forced to sell themselves or their daughters, will automatically regain their status as free men in the next sh’mittah year, and if they still owe money, that debt will have been scrapped at the end of the most recent sh’mittah cycle. With the advent of the yovel year, they or their heirs will automatically regain their title to the ancestral heritage they might have had to sell earlier. No one will therefore be permanently destitute. (b’chor shor)

אביון denotes a person who is more destitute than an עני. The term אביון (from the root אבה “to long for”, “to desire”; cf. Rashi on Exodus 23:6) denotes one who longs for everything (because he lacks everything) (Leviticus Rabbah 34:6).

כי ברך יברכך, G-d will bless both the lender and the borrower (hence the repeat of the verb ברך in this verse). We have already explained how the borrower will become blessed. As a result of the lender having foregone a claim he had on the borrower, G-d promises him that he will not become poorer as a result of having done so. In practice, G-d will see to it that he has the opportunity to extend loans to gentiles who will pay him generous interest for having received such loans. (Verse 6) If you were to argue that you do not even have contact with such gentiles, the Torah promises that they, of themselves, will make contact with you for such purpose, as you will dominate their countries politically, i.e. ומשלת בגויים רבים, “you will rule over many nations,” (end of verse 6).

רק אם שמוע תשמע ONLY IF THOU WILT CAREFULLY HEARKEN [UNTO THE VOICE OF THE LORD THY GOD] — then לא יהיה בך אביון THERE SHALL BE NO NEEDY AMONGST YOU.

רק אם שמוע תשמע, "only if you will surely hearken, etc." The reason this paragraph is positioned next to the paragraph following promising that there will not be any poor amongst you is that we have learned in Moed Katan 28 that the wealth or poverty of a person is not related to his piety but to his mazzal The Torah therefore tells us that if all the Israelites will observe all the commandments, both positive and negative, then Moses could promise that there would indeed be no one that would be poor amongst the Jewish people. In such circumstances the passage in Moed Katan 28 would not be applicable. What the Talmud referred to there were only situations in which the person in question while having more merits than debits to his credit questions why he is poor. To such a person the Talmud said that the matter was due to his mazzal.

אם שמוע תשמע...והעבטת, you will collect pawns as collaterals for the loans you extend to the gentile nations.

Then there will be no one destitute among you. The word, “only,” is connected to the previous verse, “End it [poverty], so that there will be no one destitute among you.” As if it said: The promise to you, “There will be no one destitute among you,” applies “Only if you will listen.”

שמוע תשמע [IF] THOU WILT CAREFULLY HEARKEN — The repetition of the verbal form suggests: If one listens a little (if one shows the determination to obey) he is caused to listen to many things (he gradually becomes obedient to every divine command) (Sifrei Devarim 115:1; cf. Rashi on Deuteronomy 11:13).

Listen a little, etc. Rashi is answering the question: What is the meaning of “only” that is written in this verse? For every instance of, “only,” is an exclusionary term. Rashi explains: It is excluding from, “listen,” and perforce it is coming to be expounded, “Listen a little, and you will be given the opportunity to listen much.”

כאשר דבר לך [FOR THE LORD GOD BLESSETH THEE] AS HE PROMISED THEE — and where did He promise you this? In the statement, (Deuteronomy 28:3—12) “Blessed shalt thou be in the city, etc.” (Sifrei Devarim 116:1).

V. 6. כי ה׳ אלהיך וגו׳. Wenn du durch Erfüllung des göttlichen Gesetzes dich des göttlichen Segens teilhaftig gemacht haben wirst, dann wirst du eben durch diesen nationalen Volkswohlstand, der nicht in einer glänzenden Staatsmacht bei verkümmerten Volksexistenzen, sondern eben in dem begüterten, von Mangel befreiten Gedeihen jedes einzelnen Bürgers seine Verwirklichung findet, hoch über andere Völker hinausleuchten. Mit deinem nationalen Reichtum und Überfluss wirst du dem Bedürfnis und dem Mangel anderer Völker aushelfen, sie werden dadurch in Verpflichtung und Abhängigkeit zu dir kommen, du wirst aber der Freie und Unabhängige bleiben. Ein Zustand nationaler Wohlfahrt und Selbständigkeit, der, wenn er dauernd zur Verwirklichung gekommen wäre, mehr als alles andere schon früh den Wunsch nahe gelegt hätte: ויורנו מדרכיו ונלכה באורחותיו (Jes.2, 3 ).

ברכך כאשר דבר לך, “He will bless you as He has promised you.” Where has this blessing been spelled out? Look at Deuteronomy 7,4.

והעבטת AND THOU SHALT LEND ON PLEDGE — In the case of every term that denotes transacting a loan when it refers to the lender, the Hiphil form is appropriate to it (to cause a person to do something: here, “you will make many people to be borrowers” i.e. you will lend to them), as for instance, והעבטת, והלוית; while if it stated וְעָבַטְתָּ (in the Kal), it would apply to the borrower, meaning “thou wilt borrow on pledge”, the same as ולוית (“and thou will borrow”, which in Kal refers to the borrower).

עבט, das verstärkte עבד, bezeichnet die Schuldpflicht und das für eine Schuldpflicht Haftende, das Pfand. Davon in der talmudischen Rechtssprache: שעבור. Verwandt damit ist עבת, das Seil, ähnlich wie חבל und חבול, pfänden, und dürfte der Grundbegriff von עבד: der einem Höheren Gebundene, Unfreie sein.

והעבטת גוים AND THOU SHALT LEND ON PLEDGE UNTO [MANY] NATIONS — One might think that you might do this in that you will borrow from one nation and lend to another! Scripture, however, states, “but you shall not borrow” (Sifrei Devarim 116:2).

ומשלת בגוים רבים AND THOU SHALT RULE OVER MANY NATIONS — One might think that at the very same time other nations will be ruling over you! Scripture, however, states, “but they shall not rule over you (Sifrei Devarim 116:3).

כי יהיה בך אביון IF THERE BE AMONG YOU A NEEDY MAN — The most needy has preference (Sifrei Devarim 116:4);

כי יהיה בך אביון, "If there will be a destitute person amongst you, etc." Why does the Torah have to write בך, "amongst you," when it already wrote "amongst one of your brethren?" Perhaps Moses alluded to something we have learned in Baba Batra 10 where the Talmud said that the reason G'd chooses to afflict some people with economic hardship in this life is to afford their wealthier fellow Jews the opportunity to assist such a destitute person to support himself in dignity. The words בך אביון may be read together meaning: "on your account, i.e. for your sake," there will be a destitute person." The Torah writes מאחד אחיך, "amongst one of your brethren" to remind you not to evaluate people on the basis of their economic prosperity. The fact that he is destitute does not make him a lesser person, He is still your brother. This is quite independent of the explanation of our sages (Baba Metzia 71) that the reason the Torah mentions different levels of poverty is to teach you to attend first to the local poor before tending to those elsewhere.

Among your brothers. The distinguished among your brothers, meaning a worthy poor person, who does not go collecting door to door, but someone who is important, but has lost his money.

לא תאמץ את לבבך, “do not make your heart hard;” do not fail to also try and speak soothingly to those less fortunate than you. Our sages in Baba Batra 9 said that comforting someone with words is the greatest gift of all.

The neediest [lit., whoever desires most] should be given preference. The most destitute among them. In other words: If someone needs a particular item then give it to him first, since he desires it most.

V. 7. כי יהיה בך אביון kann mit Entschiedenheit nur zu einer Gesamtheit gesprochen sein. Man kann nicht zu einem einzelnen als solchem sagen: wenn unter dir ein Armer ist. לא תאמץ לבבך und so auch die folgenden Aussprüche treffen nach der ganzen Wahl der Ausdrücke zunächst das Individuum. Das Gesetz hat also hier gleichzeitig die Gesamtheit und den einzelnen vor Augen, und die hier zum Ausspruch kommende Verpflichtung zur Fürsorge für die Armen trifft gleichzeitig die Gesamtheit und jeden einzelnen und bleibt auf beiden zugleich beruhend. Damit ist aber ein wesentlicher Grundzug dieses Gesetzes charakterisiert. Es gibt wenige, vielleicht nicht eine einzige andere Aufgabe, die also eine unausgesetzte gleichzeitige Tätigkeit der Gesamtheit und der einzelnen beansprucht, wie nach diesem Gesetze die Pflichtfürsorge für die Armen. Was — wie wir sehen werden — dieses Gesetz fordert, kann weder durch den einzelnen allein, noch durch die Gesamtheit allein gelöst werden. Beide müssen mit einander konkurrieren, beide neben einander wirken, wenn das von dem Gesetze vorgesteckte Ziel erreicht werden soll. Den Armen abweisende Schilder an Häusern, deren Bewohner zu der öffentlichen Armenkasse steuern, hat der durch dieses Gesetz genährte jüdische Geist nicht erzeugt (siehe V. 8).

ולא תקפץ, “and do not shut (your hand).” This expression occurs in the same meaning in Psalms 107,42 as well as in Job 5,16.

מאחד אחיך ONE OF THY BRETHREN — thy brother on thy fathers side has preference over thy brother on thy mother’s side (Sifrei Devarim 116:5);

ולא תקפוץ את ידך, “and do not close your hand into a fist.” For he is your brother, he is destitute, and in need of everything.

Your paternal brother should be given preference over your maternal brother. Otherwise why is the term מאחד (among one of) needed? Rashi interprets the word מאחד as מיוחד (a particular brother), which is referring to your paternal brother. For it is written below (25:5) says [a related term, יחדו regarding paternal brothers], “When brothers dwell יחדו (together).”

One may also see in these various levels of poverty described as עני, אביון in verse 12, different degrees of G'd's decrees against the poor. We have dealt with this subject on Exodus 22,24 where the Torah told us to extend loans to the poor. We explained there that sometimes the portion which is the due of the poor has been entrusted by G'd to the rich instead and that all his riches are in truth a collection of what originally had been allocated to the poor. When the rich man keeps this in mind he will never begrudge any support he extends to the poor as he is only giving to the poor what was his in the first place. Sometimes the poor finds someone physically close to him who will support him; other times he may have to travel to find someone who helps him sufficiently. This is what the Torah means when it speaks of מאחד אחיך, amongst one of your brethren. Alternatively, the benefactor may not even qualify for the description "your brother" but must be described as באחד שעריך, "someone in one of your cities." He may not even be found in one of your cities but merely בארצך, in your land but not in a Jewish city.

מאחד אחיך dadurch, dass einer deiner Brüder arm ist. Der Sinn des Gesetzes ist: sobald als auch nur ein anderer in deiner Stadt oder in deinem Lande sich befindet, der der Hülfe bedarf, so befindet sich ein Armer unter dir, in deinem Pflichtrayon, dem du dich nicht entziehen darfst, und zwar lehrt die Halacha nach Anleitung unseres Textes — ארצך ,שעריך ,אחיך — dass Verwandte den Nichtverwandten, Ortsarme den Fremden, und unter den Auswärtigen die Armen des jüdischen Landes in dem Anspruch auf Hilfeleistung voranstehen. (ש׳׳ך ,3 ,251 י׳׳ד ,ספרי daselbst; — siehe כנה׳׳ג daselbst).

שעריך [WITHIN ANY OF] THY GATES — this implies that the poor of thine own city have preference over the poor of another city (Sifrei Devarim 116:6; cf. Rashi on Exodus 22:24).

Alternatively, the word מארצך means that though there is general prosperity in your country this does not preclude the fact that some Jew will be destitute.

לא תאמץ את לבבך, eigentlich: du sollst deinem Herzen keine Gewalt antun. Es setzt dies schon voraus, dass das jüdische Herz seiner natürlichen Regung überlassen zum Wohltun geneigt ist und diese Regung nur durch kalt berechnende eigennützige Rücksichten unterdrückt werden könnte. Ebenso öffnet sich die jüdische Hand von selbst dem Armen und könnte nur ebenso durch solche Überlegungen geschlossen werden, daher: ולא תקפץ את ידך.

לא תאמץ THOU SHALT NOT MAKE [THY HEART] OBSTINATE — There are people who painfully deliberate whether they should give or not, therefore Scripture states, “thou shalt not make thy heart obstinate”; there again are people who stretch their hand forth (show readiness to give) but then close it, therefore it is written, “thou shalt not close thine hand” (Sifrei Devarim 116:10-11).

Do not close your hand. This refers to one of your brothers. The nature of Yisroel is to be merciful, and to take pity on someone who is suffering. However it is also human nature to take pity on one’s own money, and to close up one’s merciful heart.

A moral/ethical approach to the whole paragraph sees in the words מאחד אחיך, "one of your brethren," an allusion to the one who is special amongst your brethren, the one to whose coming we all look forward to with longing, i.e. the Messiah. The Messiah has been portrayed as a poor man when the prophet Zachariah 9,9 describes him as riding on a donkey. The Torah also hints at the cause of his poverty when it says בך, "because of you," meaning that if the redemption would be orchestrated by G'd because the Israelites had attained spiritual maturity the Messiah would arrive in advance of G'd's final date for the redemption and he would be able to ride in style to show that the Israelites had qualified for redemption by their own efforts. As it is, by describing him as בך, Moses portrays him as a destitute person who waits anxiously for a handout. The story is told that when Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi once encountered the Messiah, the latter asked him what the Israelites were doing at that time. The Rabbi replied that they were awaiting the arrival of the Messiah. Upon hearing this the Messiah let out a long wail showing his anxious desire to reveal himself and to redeem the Jewish people. The Torah alludes to this when writing מאחד אחיך, "amongst one of your brethren," meaning "amongst the unique one of your brethren, the Messiah (compare Targum Yonathan ben Uzziel on Genesis 26,10 who renders the words אחד העם, "one of the people" as "a unique one, a king"). The words באחד שעריך may be understood as "one who is unique amongst the Sanhedrin, the Supreme Court, as we know from Isaiah 11,4 that the Messiah will judge the poor fairly, not relying on external appearances. The word בארצך means that the arena for the Messiah's activities will be ארץ ישראל.

Wiederholt wird in diesem Wohltätigkeitskapitel der Arme als אחיך vorgeführt. In jedem Armen, gleichgültig, ob du ihn kennst oder nicht kennst, steht ein Bruder, ein Kind deines Vaters im Himmel vor dir und bringt dir eine Empfehlung von deinem und seinem Vater. —

מאחיך מאביון [NOR CLOSE THINE HAND] FROM THY NEEDY BROTHER — If you will not give him you will become in the end a brother of the needy (become as needy as himself) (cf. Sifrei Devarim 116:12).

We may also approach this verse from a different perspective. Zohar Chadash on Noach discussing Genesis 8,8, states in the name of Rabbi Eliezer that if the leaders of one synagogue or one entire congregation were to become true penitents the Messiah would arrive immediately. Accordingly we must understand the word אביון as anyone who yearns for אחד שעריך, "one of your congregations" becoming true penitents. When this happens the "destitute" Messiah will be able to fulfil his desire to arrive joyfully. The Torah writes בארצך "in your land," in order to define the place the Messiah yearns for "the land which the Lord your G'd is about to give you." He is anxious to find out when תפקוד העיר היונה חמדת הלבבות, "the city of the dove will be redeemed," the city to which all hearts aspire (compare Tzefaniah 3,1). G'd commands all of Israel לא תאמץ את לבבך ולא תקפץ את אחיך האביון "not to be stubborn but to do everything to help your brother, the destitute one," i.e. the Messiah to realise his ambition. The single most potent מצוה which will hasten the arrival of the Messiah is charity as we have been taught in Isaiah 54,14: בצדקה תכונני, "you shall be established through righteousness." The paragraph concludes with the words מאחיך האביון, "from your brother who is destitute," referring to the cause of why your brother the Messiah is destitute, unable to realise his mission.

פתח תפתח [BUT] THOU SHALT SURELY OPEN [THINE HAND] — even many times (Sifrei Devarim 116:13).

כי פתח תפתח, "for you shall surely open, etc." What made Moses think that such a reason would open the hearts of insensitive people? Perhaps Moses referred to something we read in Proverbs 11,24 that "one man gives generously and winds up with more;" being charitable does not diminish one's wealth but increases it. When the Israelite "opens his hand," G'd "opens the gates of heavenly bounty for him." This is why Moses said כי פתח "in order that G'd will open His hidden treasures, etc." He continues with והעבט תעביטנו, "you shall lend him whatever he lacks, etc." The Torah means that when you open your hand for the poor all you are doing is giving him a loan seeing that G'd will repay you with interest. This is certainly sufficient reason for Moses telling you to open your hand again and again.

כי פתוח תפתח את ידך, but

כי פתוח תפתח את ידך, “you shall keep on opening your hand for him,” even a hundred times (Sifri Re'ey 116).
והעבט תעביטנו If he does not want to accept handouts, give to him in the form of a loan so as to preserve his self respect.
די מחסורו, “enough to cover his requirements.” You are not obligated to make him rich.
אשר יחסר לו, “in accordance with what he lacks.” Even if he needs a horse to ride on or a servant to run in front of him (to maintain his standard of living).
לו, even if you have to get him a wife (based on the wife of Adam being described as אעשה לו עזר כנגדו in Genesis 2,18.)

This refers to a wife, etc. In other words, you must provide him with a wife.

V. 8. כי פתח תפתח. Alle die Gebote der Wohltätigkeit werden hier in dieser erweiternden Form ausgesprochen: נתון תתן ,העבט תעביטנו ,פתח תפתח, und zwar läge, nach Baba Mezia 31 a u. b, die Unbeschränkteit der Wiederholung אפי׳ מאה פעמים schon in der aoristischen Form des Infinitivs נתון ,העבט ,פתוח, und die Beifügung des tempus finitum erweitert die Verpflichtung auch in anderer Beziehung, z. B. פתוח תפתח אין לי אלא לעניי עירך לעניי עיר אחרת מנין ת׳׳ל פתוח תפתח מכל מקום נתן תתן אין לי אלא מתנה מרובה מתנה מועטת מנין ת׳׳ל נתן תתן מכל מקום. Es wird also die mit נתון תתן ,פתוח תפתח ausgesprochene Verpflichtung nicht nur für jede wiederholte Gelegenheit, אפי׳ מאה פעמים, erweitert, was schon in der infinitiven Form des Ausspruchs liegen würde, sondern auch auf auswärtige Notleidende ausgedehnt, und nicht nur von dem zu großen Gaben fähigen Begüterten, sondern in gleicher Weise auch von dem Minderbemittelten die Erfüllung dieser Pflicht, sei es auch mit einer ihm möglichen kleinsten Gabe erwartet. Auf dem Gebiete dieser Pflicht wiegt das Kleinste dem Größten gleich, wenn die Kräfte nicht zu Größerem reichen. (Wenn hier עניי עיר אחרת ihre Andeutung in dem פתח תפתח :רבוי finden, während dieselben doch wie עניי עירך in בשעריב ebenso in בארצך nach dem ספרי bereits ausgesprochen liegen, so dürfte im Sinne des257 י׳׳ד) טור; siehe ב׳׳ח daselbst) für עניי עיר אחרת eine zwiefache Erweiterung Bedürfnis sein, für עניי עיר אחרת in ihrer Heimat, und für dieselben, wenn sie sich zeitweilig in unserem Orte befinden). Nach dem ספרי brächte der רבוי auch eine Erweiterung in der Erfüllungsart der Pflicht, dass sie sich nach dem individuellen Bedürfnis des Hilfsbedürftigen zu richten habe: פתוח תפתח נתון תתן למה נאמר כולם מגיד הכתוב הראוי ליתן לו פת נותנים לו פת הראוי ליתן לו עיסה נותנים לו עיסה הראוי ליתן לו מעה נותנים לו מעה הראוי להאכיל בתוך פיו מאכילים אותו בתוך פיו.

העבט תעביטנו, “take his security pawn as a guarantee that he will repay you the loan.”

כי פתח תפתח BUT THOU SHALT SURELY OPEN [THINE HAND] — Here, you see, the word כי has the meaning of “but” (whilst e.g.. in v. 7 it means “if”, in v. 10 “because”).

והעבט תעביטנו, oder je nach Umständen sollst du ihn mit Darlehen unterstützen, und wird (Schabbat 63 a) die Unterstützung mit Darlehen als die noch höhere Wohltätigkeit begriffen, weil sie den damit Unterstützten in seiner Erwerbstätigkeit erhält und im Moment des Empfangens sich weniger erniedrigt fühlen lässt. גדול המלוה יותר מן העושה צדקה, und wird dort hinzugefügt: ומטיל לכס יותר מכולן, wenn der Begüterte, um den Unbemittelten in seinem Erwerbe zu unterstützen, ihm eine Summe in sein Geschäft mit einem Geschäftsanteil einschießt, so übt er damit die höchste Wohltat, weil er den Unterstützten vollkommen sich ebenbürtig und in seiner Erwerbstätigkeit aufrecht erhält und diese Form gar nichts Verletzendes für sein Bewusstsein hat. Ist doch überhaupt die Aufrechthaltung des Nächsten vor Verarmung die höchste Aufgabe des Wohltuns, die bereits Wajikra 25, 35 zur Pflicht gemacht ist (siehe daselbst). — Gleichzeitig wird mit העבט תעביטנו an die Hand gegeben, wenn der Hilfsbedürftige ein Geschenk zu empfangen sich scheut, es ihm unter der Form eines Darlehens zu schenken. אין לו ואינו רוצה להתפרנס תן לו דרך הלואה (B. M. 31 b).

והעבט תעביטנו AND THOU SHALT LEND HIM ON PLEDGE — If he does not want a gift, give it to him as a loan (cf. Sifrei Devarim 116:14; Ketubot 67b).

די מחסרו in diesen beiden Worten gipfelt die Größe der jüdischen Verpflichtung zur Wohltätigkeit. Dem Mangel des Armen soll durch uns vollkommen abgeholfen werden. אי אתה מצווה להעשירו, du bist nicht verpflichtet, ihn reich zu machen (ספרי), allein, was ihm "fehlt" soll ihm geschafft werden, und zwar: אשר יחסר לו mit Rücksicht auf seine individuelle Lage und etwa aus früheren besseren Verhältnissen unentbehrlich gewordene Lebensgewöhnungen, אפילו סוס לרכוב עליו עבד לרוץ לפניו (Ketubot 67 b; siehe daselbst).

די מחסרו [LEND HIM ON PLEDGE] SUFFICIENT FOR HIS NEED — but you are not commanded to make him rich.

Das נתון תתן ,פתוח תפתח und די מחסורו, und andererseits die Warnung לא תאמץ את לבבך ולא תקפץ את ידך מאחיך האביון hat alle die Wunder der jüdischen Wohltätigkeit erzeugt, die bis auf den heutigen Tag die allzerstreuten Söhne des Hauses Jakob zu einem großen Wohltätigkeitsvereine über die weite Erde hin stillschweigend konstituiert und jedes hilfsbedürftige Elend jüdische Hütten und jüdische Herzen zuerst aufsuchen lässt. Die Pflicht, den Bedürfnissen der Armen nach allen Seiten hin, די מחסורו gerecht zu werden, hat einerseits die Notwendigkeit ergeben, die Sorge für die Armenpflege zur Sache eines jeden jüdischen Gemeinwesens zu machen, das für deren Zwecke die Kräfte seiner Glieder diktatorisch in Anspruch zu nehmen berechtigt ist — ממשכנין על הצדקה (B. B. 8 b) — andererseits aber damit keineswegs die Lösung dieser Aufgabe erschöpft sein lassen, sondern der Privatwohltätigkeit und der Wirksamkeit freiwilliger Wohltätigkeitsvereine einen Kreis nie ermüdenden edelsten Wohltuns eröffnet. Die Aufgabe der jüdischen Zedakapflicht ist eine so ernste und so große, dass nur ein Zusammenwirken dieser drei Faktoren — der Gemeinden, der Vereine und der Privaten — ihrer Erfüllung nahe kommen kann, ja, כל הנופל אינו נופל לידי גבאי תחלה, jeder Verarmende fällt nicht gleich der öffentlichen Armenkasse anheim, heißt es schon Nedarim 65 b; die nächsten Angehörigen haben sich überall zunächst ihrer Hilfsbedürftigen anzunehmen, und nur subsidiarisch, wo diese nicht reichen, hat das Gemeinwesen ergänzend einzutreten, und bleibt ja namentlich die verschämte Not und das überall individuell sich gestaltende Bedürfnis edelstes Augenmerk privater Wohltätigkeit. Ebenso aber gibt es Zwecke, denen nur die Gemeindefürsorge gerecht zu werden vermag. So namentlich z. B. die Sorge für den Jugendunterricht der Unbemittelten, und ist dies von je also von den jüdischen Gemeinden begriffen worden, dass man sogar — irrtümlich — sich gewöhnt hat, den Titel: תלמוד תורה unter den Obliegenheiten eines jüdischen Gemeinwesens nur von der Fürsorge für den Unterricht der Kinder der Armen zu verstehen.

אשר יחסר לו [SUFFICIENT FOR HIS NEED] IN THAT WHICH HE LACKETH — This implies: you must provide him even with a horse to ride on and a slave to run before him (if he was accustomed to such and now feels the lack of them) (Sifrei Devarim 116:16; Ketubot 67b).

Zwei Momente sind es aber ganz besonders, denen der jüdische Wohltätigkeitssinn seine Pflege und seine heilbringende Betätigung verdankt. Der jüdische Gedanke schaut die Aufgabe des Wohltuns als צדקה, als Pflicht in eminentestem Sinne an (siehe Bereschit S. 227). Wer dem Armen nicht nach Kräften hilft, versündigt sich und trägt eine schwere Schuld vor Gott. והיה בך חטא heißt es von ihm im folgenden Verse. Damit ist aber das Wohltun der Gewähr leistenden Sphäre eines bald mehr bald minder regen, von Stimmungen bedingten Mitleids entrückt und dem Bereiche gemessensten Pflichtgebots überwiesen und zugleich dem Empfangen der Wohltat das drückende Gefühl der Erniedrigung genommen. Der jüdische Arme empfängt kein "Almosen" (Eleemosyne: Barmherzigkeitsspende). Und es hat die tiefe Einsicht unserer "Weisen", anknüpfend an das מעשר עני-Gesetz, den Umfang dieser Zedakapflicht in einem Zehnten normiert, der zuerst von jedem neugewonnenen Kapital und sodann von dem jährlichen Verdienste für die Zwecke der Wohltätigkeit ausgeschieden wird, wodurch jeder Jude sich als Verwalter einer unter seinen Händen beruhenden, Gott heiligen kleineren oder größeren Wohltätigkeitskasse zu begreifen hat, der sich freuen muss, wenn er Gelegenheit findet, das ihm schon nicht mehr Gehörende, vielmehr nur zur zweckmäßigen Verwendung Anvertraute, einem guten Zwecke zuzuwenden.

לו — implies that you must help him even to get a wife; for so it states. אעשה לו עזר כנגדו “I will make a helpmate for him (לו)” (Sifrei Devarim 116:17; Ketubot 67b).

וקרא עליך AND HE CRY [UNTO THE LORD] AGAINST THEE — One might think this is a command (“he shall call against thee”). Scripture, however, states, (Deuteronomy 24:15) “[At his day thou shalt give him his hire … he is poor], so that he may not call against thee [unto the Lord]” (Sifrei Devarim 117:5).

השמר לך פן יהיה עם לבבך דבר בליעל, meaning something evil, unworthy. We encounter this word also in Psalms 41,9 דבר בליעל יצוק בו “something baneful has settled in him,” there the meaning is similar to here, i.e. a good deed reluctantly performed, the donor not really believing that the recipient of his tithes is entitled to handouts.

Perhaps this is a mitzvah? The Torah therefore teaches, “So that he does not cry out.” That verse is written in Parshas Ki Seitzei (below 24:15). Even though that verse deals with a day laborer, and the verse here pertains to lending to the poor, nevertheless they both pertain to the poor. For it is written here, “Your destitute brother,” and it is written there, “For he is a poor man, etc.”

V. 9. פן יהיה דבר עם לבבך .השמר וגו׳ (siehe zu Kap. 8, 5). — בליעל (siehe zu Kap. 13, 14). ולא תתן לו als Darlehen. Man sieht, welchen Nachdruck das Gesetz auf die Pflicht des Darlehens legt und das ׳העבט וגו des V. 8 nicht nur von einer Form des Schenkens, sondern in erster Linie von wirklichem Leihen verstanden wissen will (siehe daselbst und Schmot 22, 24). Ketubot 68 a wird mit Hinweis auf die gleichen Ausdrücke בליעל, mit welchen hier und Kap. 13, 14 die Versagung der Wohltat und die Propaganda für Götzentum gekennzeichnet werden, gelehrt: כל המעלים עיניו מן הצדקה כאילו עובד עבודה זרה כתיב הכא השמר לך פן יהי׳ דבר עם לבבך בליעל וגו׳ וכתיב חתם יצאו אנשים בליעל וגו׳ מה להלן ע׳׳ז אף כאן ע׳׳ז. Es ist Gott, in dessen Namen eine jede Aufforderung zur Hilfe an uns ergeht. Und dieser Anforderung die gebührende Beachtung versagen, heißt: Gott verleugnen und Geld zu seinem Abgott machen.

קרבה שנת השבע, “the seventh year of the sh’mittah is approaching; “I might not get paid back because of the law to remit outstanding debts.” Moreover, in the coming year this lender will not even be allowed to seed his field and harvest a crop from which to sustain himself. As a result of such considerations he does not wish to extend a loan to the needy.

והיה בך חטא AND IT BE SIN UNTO THEE — under any circumstances, even if he does not cry against thee. But if this be so, to what end is it written “and he cry against thee”? It suggests that I will make greater haste to punish thee because of him who cries, than because of one who does not cry (Sifrei Devarim 117:5).

נתן תתן לו THOU SHALT SURELY GIVE HIM — even hundred times (Sifrei Devarim 117:6).

For because (biglal) of this thing, the Lord will bless you: The Rabbis, may their memory be blessed (Shabbat 151b), learned from the expression, biglal, that it is a cycle (galgal) that repeats itself in the world. But many wondered about the expression, since biglal is not [related to] galgal, as behold, a [letter], gimmel is lacking [in the former]. And I say that their intention, may their memory be blessed, was to understand biglal as related to the usage, "and they would roll (gallelu) the stone" (Genesis 29:3). And [by this], they wanted to say [that] when poverty goes around among people from this one to that one - as is customary - then "the Lord will bless you," and cause that it not roll over and fall upon (crush) you when it falls on people. And axiomatically, we learn that the thing goes around in the world like a cycle, such that everyone who gives will in the end [also] receive. As that is the trait of everything that exists in all three of the worlds, that everything that gives will come back to [also] take, in the way that we explained above in Parshat Bereshit on the verse, "the sixth day" (Kli Yakar on Genesis 1:31:5). As with everything that exists, the thing moves like a cycle, that each one of them gives and receives, except for God alone - He gives and does not receive.

נתון תתן לו, “You shall surely give him, etc.” The reason the Torah repeats the word נתן is to tell you that if you will give the poor in adequate measure, the Lord in turn will give you in adequate measure. Our sages interpreted the words to mean that even if you are called upon 100 times to support the same individual, do not refuse. The latter demand is based on your not having given the poor enough support the first time.
Concerning this subject Solomon said in Proverbs 21,26: “while the righteous man gives without stint.” Solomon means that the righteous does not allow any considerations to deflect him from giving charity. Another nuance included in the wording of the Torah נתון תתן is that one should give charity in a pleasant manner, not grudgingly. Neither should one do so in an arrogant manner. By following all these implications contained in the Torah’s wording, one may merit that one’s own wealth will endure. Concerning this Solomon said in Proverbs 13,8: “the poor never heard a reproof.” When does a man retain his own wealth? When he does not make the poor believe that his misfortune may be of his own doing, and one gives charity with a pleasant countenance. This is reflected in the story told by our sages about Rabbi Yannai who said to a wealthy man who publicly gave an alms to a poor man: “it would have been better if you had not given to this man at all instead of publicly embarrassing him” (Chagigah 5).

Even if you merely say that you would give, etc. Since the word הדבר (this thing) is written, they expounded it as being related to the word דיבור (speech). Likewise the verse (Bereishis 12:17), “Regarding the matter (דבר) of Sarah,” is expounded as, “Through Sarah’s speech.” Otherwise, why is the term, “this thing,” needed? Rather it should simply say, “Because of this, Adonoy will bless you.”

V. 10. בינך לבינו :לו ,אפי׳ מאה פעמים :נתון תתן, unter vier Augen (ספרי) dass kein anderer es sieht oder erfährt. ולא ירע לבבך בתתך לו, mit freudigem Herzen gib, wie denn überhaupt die Art und Weise des Gebens den Wert der Gabe unendlich erhöhen oder verringern kann. כל הנותן פרוטה לעני, wer einem Armen einen Groschen gibt, heißt es B. B. 9 b: מתברך בשש ברכות והמפייסו בדברים מתברך באחד עשר ברכות הנותן פרוטה לעני מתברך בו׳ ברות דבתיב הלא פרוס לרעב לחמך וגו׳ כי תראה ערום וכסיתו וגו׳ אז יבקע כשחר אורך וגו׳ אז תקרא וד׳ יענה וגו׳ והמפייסו בדברים ל מתברך באחד עשר ברכות שנאמר ותפק לרעב נפשך ונפש נענה תשביע וזרה בחשך אורך וגו׳ ונחך ד׳ תמיד וגו׳ וגו׳: wer einem Armen einen Groschen gibt wird mit sechs Segnungen gesegnet, denn es heißt (Jesaias 58, 7 f.): brichst du dem Hungrigen dein Brot, führst unglückliche Arme in dein Haus, siehst einen Nackten und bekleidest ihn und entziehst dich deinem Nächsten nicht: so wird wie der Morgen dein Licht durchbrechen, deine eigene Genesung rasch erblühen usw. usw. Wer ihm aber mit Worten zuredet, wird mit elf Segnungen gesegnet, denn es heißt (daselbst): bringst du aber dem Hungrigen deine Seele mit hinaus, verstehst die darbende Seele zu sättigen, dann geht im Dunkeln dein Licht auf usw. und es leitet Gott dich stets usw. usw.

ולא ירע לבבך בתתך לו, “not only are you not torefuse a loan but you must not extend a loan reluctantly;” the Torah warns you not to think that you will suffer economic hardship for having been goodhearted. G-d promises that He will bless your for your good heartedness.

לו implies between him and you (privately) (Sifrei Devarim 117:7.)

And it appears that the reason for the thing is that God did not want man to establish himself on the land - he and his seed - forever, in the way that it stated (Leviticus 25:23), "And the land may not be sold forever, as the land is Mine." And if a man would never come to this trait - not he and not his seed - he would establish himself on the land forever, and forget that 'to God is the land (earth).' Therefore, the Holy One, blessed be He, causes that every man come to this trait, either he or his seed; to know and make known that they are all like strangers upon the land, and [that] to God is the universe and its fullness. And that which it is written after [this] verse to give a reason why it goes around upon people, "Since a destitute person will never be lacking from within the land"(Deuteronomy 15:11), is because [being] within the land necessitates this matter, as mentioned. "Therefore, I command you: open your hand to your poor," so that they will also give to you or to your seed. But not to both of them, as it is stated (Psalms 37:25), "and I have never seen a righteous man abandoned, and his seed seeking bread" - meaning to say he and his seed, but rather [it can only be] either he or his seed. And with this, this verse does not contradict that which the Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said (Shabbat 151b) [that] either he or his seed come to be included in this trait. And some say that the lack of a gimmel in the word, biglal, is to say that it follows from the iniquity of refraining from acts of loving-kindness. As the [letter combination] gimmel-dalet [as expounded by] the Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, [means] to give to the poor (gomel dalim) and the lack of a gimmel (which represents giving) to the poor, moves the cycle [forward].

As a consequence of this thing. That you give generously, and as a result the poor person will bless you, which has a great effect, as explained in Midrash Rus, that more than the rich person gives to the poor, the poor does for the rich, meaning that he blesses him.

כי בגלל הדבר הזה “for on account of this matter, etc.” Our sages in Shabbat 151 said that the reason the Torah did not use the word למען but בגלל is an allusion to the גלגל, “the wheel of fortune,” i.e. horoscopic influences which govern the way money travels from one person to another. G’d is threatening here that “if you do not share your wealth with the poor by giving charity generously, I will give the wheel of fortune a spin so that the wealth which devolved upon you up until now will devolve upon someone else. We have a verse in Scripture on this subject in Psalms 75,8: “for G’d it is Who gives judgment, He brings down one man and He lifts up another.” Our sages on the above mentioned folio of Shabbat say that a man should pray especially concerning this attribute of G’d, [that he should not be made to suffer from it. Ed.] for even if he himself may not suffer from it his son or grandson may be made to suffer from it.

כי בגלל הדבר הזה BECAUSE THAT FOR THIS THING [THE LORD THY GOD SHALL BLESS THEE] — (the word is taken in its literal sense of “word”, for it would have sufficed to state כי בגלל זה suggesting): even if you only say (intend) to give but are later unable to do so you will receive a reward for the mere saying (intention) together with the reward for the action (Sifrei Devarim 117:8).

In all your work. Whether in the field, or in creative activity.

And in all your commerce. In all your business dealings.

על כן means מפני כן BECAUSE OF THIS.

FOR THE POOR SHALL NEVER CEASE OUT OF THE LAND. Commentators³⁰²Reference is to Ibn Ezra and others. have said that the meaning thereof is that the poor shall never cease out of the Land at any of all times, for there will always be poor in the Land, for it was apparent before Him that they will not do [to make possible] what he said to them, But there shall be no needy among you,³⁰³Above, Verse 4. if only thou diligently hearken unto the voice of the Eternal thy G-d to observe to do all this commandment.³⁰⁴Verse 5. But it is not correct in my opinion, for the Torah may allude to what will be but it would not explicitly prophesy about them [the Israelites] that they will not fulfill the Torah, nor would he have commanded them [to observe the commandments while foretelling] that they would always transgress them. Forbid it! It is only by way of warning that he mentions [their transgressions].
The correct interpretation is that he says that it is impossible for the poor to cease so that none should ever exist. He [Moses] mentioned this because, having assured them that there would be no needy if they observe all the commandments³⁰⁵Verse 6. he said: “But I know that not all generations forever will observe all the commandments in which case there would be no need to charge you concerning the poor, for perhaps, at some time, there will exist poor and so I command you about him if he will be found.” He states out of the Land [for the poor shall never cease ‘out of the Land’] in order to allude to the entire habitation [anywhere on earth], for the promise that there would not be needy among us applies in the Land which the Eternal our G-d giveth us for an inheritance³⁰³Above, Verse 4. if we will fulfill there all the commandments. And now he said that it is possible that, at some period or at some place where you will have settled, there be found a poor man among you. For the meaning of the expression in thy Land³⁰⁵Verse 6. [If there be among you a needy man … ‘in thy Land’] is like in all your habitations³⁰⁶Exodus 12:20. — within the Land of Israel and outside of the Land.

כי לא יחדל אביון מקרב הארץ, for it is basically unrealistic to assume that society is 100 per cent righteous, deserving, something which even Psalms 7,20 considered as an impossibility in this life.

כי לא יחדל אביון מקרב הארץ, “for destitute people will not cease to exist within the land.” Nachmanides writes that some commentators (notably Ibn Ezra, whom he does not name in this context) write that Moses means that there never will be a time when no one is destitute in the land of Israel, seeing that Moses in his prophetic vision foresaw that the Jewish people would never observe Torah law in their entirety, without exception, so that the presence of a destitute person would be unimaginable. The law not to dun creditors at the end of the seventh year of the shemittah cycle therefore envisages such situations. Nachmanides finds this approach difficult, as it is not the custom of the Torah to engage in the kind of prophesy that accuses the Jewish people ahead of time of disloyalty to G’d without qualifying such a prophesy with a conditional phrase such as “if in the course of time, etc.” introducing such a prophecy. It is uncharacteristic for the Torah to legislate one of the basic commandments as something to be applicable to people who have been labeled beforehand by the Torah as deliberate sinners. He therefore prefers to explain our verse as follows: seeing that in spite of the blessings that accrue to you when you do observe the laws of the Torah, and the resultant affluence in the land it is practically impossible that sometime in the future there will be not be an instance of a destitute person, unable to repay his loan on time, one must not dun such a fellow Jew at the end of the shemittah year to repay his loan, but must forgive it. The reason Moses adds the words: בקרב הארץ, is to include not only the narrowly defined borders of the seven Canaanite tribes, but to include other regions in which the Jews are settled at the time in question. This somehow expands what Moses had defined in verse 7 as specifically “your land that Hashem gives you.” Now he envisages the possibility of exile and wants us to practice the law of remitting overdue debts even in exile, where the whole shemittah legislation does not apply, seeing we have no land to practice it on, and even if we did, the land is not a “holy land.”

For this reason. I.e., the term על כן does not mean, “since,” as in, “Since (כי על כן) I did not give her to Shailoh my son (Bereishis 38:26),” and, “Since (כי על כן) I did not allow you to touch her (ibid. 20:6).” For in those verses, the expression על כן is connected to the word כי — and every instance of כי על כן in Scripture means, “since,” as Rashi explains in Parshas Vayeirah (ibid. 18:5). But here the expression על כן means, “For this reason,” because it is written without the word כי.

V. 11. ׳כי לא יחדל אביון וגו. Es heißt nicht מקרבך oder מקרב ארצך, sondern מקרב הארץ: von der Erde. Es liegt ganz im Laufe der natürlichen Entwicklung der irdischen Dinge, dass — sich selbst überlassen — die größte Vermögensverschiedenheit, Not und Überfluss, Armut und Reichtum neben einander erscheinen. Schon die Ungleichheit geistiger Begabung hat eine solche Ungleichheit zu natürlicher Folge, und zwei von Haus aus völlig gleich begüterte Söhne, von denen der eine nur ein Kind, der andere eine zahlreiche Familie zu versorgen hat, werden schon einen bedeutenden Vermögensunterschied darstellen, und treten dem letzteren nun noch Krankheiten und sonstiges Missgeschick in den Weg, so wird schon in der zweiten Generation bittere Not neben reicher Opulenz sich herausstellen. Diese überall auf Erden natürlich sich ergebenden Notstände sollst du aber בארצך, in deinem Lande nicht aufkommen lassen. בארצך, in "deinem" Lande, in dem Lande des göttlichen Gesetzes und der an die Erfüllung desselben sich knüpfenden besonderen göttlichen Leitung, da soll eben das Gesetz den Ausgleich dieser natürlich gegebenen Ungleichheiten bewirken, da soll jeder ärmere Bruder in dem reicheren Verwandten seinen "Bruder" finden, da gehört jeder Arme und Dürftige "Dir", der Gesamtheit an, und so gewiß אין צבור מת ואין צבור עני, die Gesamtheit nicht stirbt und nicht verarmt, so gewiss soll unter einer pflichtbewussten jüdischen Gesamtheit Armut und Dürftigkeit nur vorübergehend den einzelnen treffen und unter der Agide des göttlichen Beistandes in ein menschenwürdiges beglücktes Sein auf Erden umwandelt werden. So wird auch wohl im ספרי das מקרב הארץ aufgefasst: כי לא יחדל האביון מקרב הארץ ולהלן הוא אומר כי לא יהיה בך אביון כיצד יתקיימו שני כתובים הללו בזמן שאתם עושים רצונו של מקום אביונים באחרים ובזמן שאין אתם עושים רצונו של מקום אביונים בכם (vergl. Verse 4 u. 5).

כי לא יחדל אביון, “for there will not cease to be destitute people.” This sounds like a contradiction to what the Torah had promised in verse 4, where it stated that there would not be destitute people in our land. The promise in verse 4 had been linked to a condition. i.e. that the entire population observes the sh’mittah and yovel legislation. The critical word there had been the word כי. In our verse here this word occurs again but here it means: “maybe, possibly.” In our paragraph the word כי occurs no fewer than four times. It has a different meaning each time. We have a conditional word כי in כי יהיה בך אביון, “if there should be among you a destitute person;” we have a word כי meaning “but,” in כי פתוח תפתח, “but you shall definitively open your hand;” we have the word כי meaning “because of” in בגלל הדבר הזה, “for the sake of this matter G-d will bless you;” and we have the word כי meaning “so that not,” in כי לא יחדל אביון “if perchance your actions were not charitable enough to prevent the existence of destitute people among you.”

לאמר suggests: I give you good advice for your own benefit (Sifrei Devarim 118:2).

ולאביונך בארצך, “and to your destitute in your land.” The word בארצך, “in your land,” is problematic seeing that supporting the needy is not a commandment dependent on residence in the land of Israel. The same question can be raised against the phrasing of verse 7, where Moses mentions the law as applying “in one of your gates, in your land, etc.” Perhaps the intention in both instances is to teach that as long as the poor in the land of Israel and the poor in the Diaspora both appeal for help, the poor in the land of Israel are to be given precedence.

I am counselling you for your own good. Otherwise, why is the word, “saying,” needed? For no form of the word דיבור (spoke) is mentioned beforehand so that the word, “saying,” should follow it.

UNTO THY BROTHER, UNTO THY POOR, AND UNTO THY NEEDY IN THY LAND. The meaning thereof is as if he said: “to your poor brother, and to all the needy in your Land.” For because the commandment is addressed to Israel he mentions thy brother, and he joins in explanation “your brother and all the needy in your Land,” to command concerning the whole of Israel. And its homiletic interpretation is as follows:³⁰⁷Sifre, R’eih 116. “This teaches that [in giving charity] precedence be given to those nearer” [to you so that the poor of your own city or land have priority over the poor of distant places].
He mentions that there is also a release for a [Hebrew] servant in his seventh year,³⁰⁸Verse 12. for that release [of a servant] is also like the release [of loans in the Sabbatical year] mentioned³⁰⁹Above, Verse 1. [and hence the proximity of the subjects], all of them being to remember the days of old,³¹⁰Further, 32:7. as I have hinted in its place.³¹¹Exodus 21:2 Vol. II, p. 341, Note 23 Also, ibid., p. 349. There it is alluded that the expression and he shall be thy bondman forever³¹²Verse 17. is to be taken in its plain sense. Now he repeated this commandment in order to explain in it the outfitting of the emancipated servant.³¹³Verses 13-14.

So gewiss aber der hilfsbedürftigen Armut unter dem Regime des jüdischen Gesetzes Hilfe und Beistand gesichert ist, so gewiss jüdische Zedaka den Zedaka bedürftigen Empfänger nicht schändet, ja im Geiste dieses Gesetzes den Arbeitsunfähigen, Verdienstlosen, der aus missverstandenem Ehrgeiz sich und den Seinen das Leben verkürzt, um nicht zu der ihm gebührenden Zedaka seine Zuflucht zu nehmen, schwere Verantwortung trifft — כל מי שצריך ליטול ואינו נוטל הרי זה שופך דמים (Jeruschalmi Pea, Ende) — so legt eben der Geist dieses Gesetzes einen sehr hohen Wert auf die Bewahrung der Selbständigkeit, die sich lieber auf das Allernotwendigste beschränkt, jede, auch die in den Augen der gedankenlosen Welt "niedrigste" Arbeit ergreift, um nur nicht Spenden der Menschenwohltätigkeit in Anspruch zu nehmen. Es gibt keinen Kreis, in welchem sich redlich und selbständig ernährende Arbeit so hoch in Ehren steht, als dies in dem altjüdischen Kreise der Fall war. Unsere größten geistigen Heroen, deren Licht uns noch leuchtet und zu denen ihre Zeit und alle Zeiten verehrungsvoll hinanblickten und blicken, ein Hillel, ein R. Jehoschua, ein R. Chanina und R. Oschaja, ein R. Scheschet, ein R. Huna, lebten in den beschränktesten Verhältnissen und nährten sich als Holzhauer, Schmiede, Schuhmacher, Lastträger, Wasserschöpfer und lehrten durch ihr Beispiel die Maxime: עשה שבתך חול ואל תצטרך לבריות, lebe am Schabbat nicht besser, als am Wochentage und mache dich nicht der Menschenhilfe bedürftig (Peßachim 113 a). פשוט נבילתא בשוק ושקיל אגרא ולא תימא כהנא אנא וגברא רבה אנא וסניא בי מלתא: Tagelöhnere mit Fellabziehen auf öffentlicher Straße und sage nicht, ich bin ein Kohen, bin ein Gelehrter, das schickt sich nicht für mich (daselbst; siehe רשב׳׳ם B. B. 110 a). Wer, heißt es in der Mischna Ende Pea: wer Zedaka nicht nötig hat und sie doch nimmt, geht nicht aus der Welt, ohne wirklich der Menschenwohltätigkeit aus Not anheimzufallen. Wer aber Zedaka nehmen dürfte und sie nicht nimmt, der scheidet nicht im Alter, ohne andere mit eigenem Vermögen wohltätig ernährt zu haben. כל מי שאינו צריך ליטול ונוטל אינו נפטר מן העולם עד שיצטרך לבריות וכל מי שצריך ליטול ואינו נוטל אינו מת מן הזקנה עד שיפרנס אחרים משלו ועליו הכתוב אומר ברוך הגבר אשר יבטח כד׳ והיה ד׳ מבטחו.

לאחיך, “to your brother, who takes precedence over your unrelated neighbour.

לאחיך לעניך [THOU SHALT SURELY OPEN THINE HAND] UNTO THY BROTHER, TO THY POOR — open thine hand to thy brother, to which brother? To the poor one.

לענייך, “to the poor in your town,” who take precedence over the poor in neighbouring towns.

לעניך written with one Jod denotes one poor man, but ענייך with two Jods denotes two (or many) poor, i.e. it is a plural form.

לאביוניך בארצך, “to the destitute in your country,” who take precedence over the destitute people in another country. (Ibn Ezra)

כי ימכר לך IF [THY BROTHER …] BE SOLD UNTO THEE by others (not one that sells himself as a servant on account of his destitution, of which case Scripture deals in Leviticus 25:46 ff); Scripture is speaking of one whom the court has sold for a theft that he has committed. But has it not already been stated. (Exodus 21:2) “If thou buyest an Hebrew servant” and there, too, Scripture speaks of one whom the court has sold (as proved by Rashi in his comment on that verse; Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 21:2:1)?!. But the repetition was necessary because of two new points that are stated here: the one is that it is here written “or an Hebrew woman”, that she, too, like a man-servant, goes free at the end of six years of servitude — it does not mean a woman whom the court had sold, for a woman cannot be sold by the court on account of a theft committed by her, since it states, (Exodus 22:2) that the thief shall be sold “for his theft” which implies: he for his theft, but not she for her theft (Sotah 23b); — but what Scripture is speaking of here is of a woman under age whom her father has sold as a handmaid, and it teaches you here that if six years of servitude terminate before the time that she shows signs of incipient puberty she goes free. And further it mentions a new point here, viz., “thou shalt furnish him (or her) liberally” (cf. Rashi on Exodus 30:4).

ועבדך, "and he will serve you, etc." The letter ו at the beginning of this word connects it to the previous commandment. This is analogous to what our sages have taught about the word לך in the sequence כי ימכר לך, that a Jewish court is not allowed to "sell" the labour of a Jew except to another Jew. The new addition to this restriction of the court's authority is that the length of time for which the labour of such a Jew may be sold is restricted to six years.

אחיך העברי, on account of his inability to make restitution for what he had stolen.

כי ימכר לך אחיך העברי או העבריה, “If your brother the Hebrew man or the Hebrew woman will be sold to you, etc.” Although the laws applying to Hebrew slaves (servants) have already been outlined in Exodus chapter 21,2-11, the Torah repeats the legislation here as it contains a new element telling us that a woman also leaves her employer by right at the conclusion of six years’ service. Also, the instruction to give the departing servant a stake to help him gain financial independence was not mentioned in Exodus.

When the courts sold him for his larceny, etc. You might ask: From where does Rashi know this? Perhaps he sold himself, similar to the verse (Vayikra 25:39) ונמכר לך (And he is sold to you), where he sold himself. We cannot say that Rashi’s explanation is because it already says, “And he is sold to you,” regarding when he sold himself, and therefore the verse here is apparently redundant [and must be discussing a different case — when the courts sold him]. If so [we could say to the contrary], it already says, “If you purchase a Hebrew slave (Shmos 21:2),” regarding when he is sold by others — the courts [and then the verse here must be discussing a different case — when he sold himself]. Re”m answers: Perhaps the expression, “And he is sold,” on its own means that he is sold by others. For the word נמכר is the nifal verb form, which usually means that a subject is acted upon by others. Except regarding the verse, “And he is sold,” it is first written, “When your brother becomes impoverished,” and continues to explain, “And he is sold.” Perforce, it means that he sold himself. But it seems to me that regarding a Hebrew slave we learn one verse from another: It is written here אחיך העברי (Your brother-Jew), and it is written there עבד עברי (Jewish slave) — just as in the verse there he was sold by others, so too here he was sold by others.

V. 12. כי ימכר וגו׳. Die Gesetze über die den Hilfsbedürftigen zuzuwendende Fürsorge schließen zusammenfassend mit zwei Problemen, mit welchen die ganze soziale Gesetzgebung, insbesondere das Personenrecht im Schmot 21, 2 eingeleitet wird. Es sind dies die Fälle des gerichtlichen Verkaufes eines Diebes zur Tilgung seiner Ersatzschuld und des Verkaufes einer minderjährigen Tochter durch den Vater zum Zwecke ihrer Ernährung, eventuell ihrer bleibenden Versorgung. Wir haben diese Rechtsfälle bereits im zweiten Buche ausführlich besprochen und gezeigt, wie sich an ihnen das jüdische Recht in der Behandlung der durch Verbrechen oder Unglück auf die tiefste Stufe sozialer Stellung geratenen Personen charakteristisch kennzeichnet. Die dort gegebenen Rechtsbestimmungen erhalten hier im Geiste der vorangegangenen allgemeinen Zedakagebote eine wesentliche Ergänzung durch die Pflicht der הענקה (V. 14), durch die Verpflichtung, die zwangsweise in den Stand der Unfreiheit Geratenen beim Zurücktritt in die Freiheit nach gesetzlichem Ablauf ihres Dienstverhältnisses nicht leer aus dem Dienst treten zu lassen, dieselben vielmehr mit "gesegneten" und segenfähigen Gütern für den Wiederantritt der Freiheit auszustatten. Diese Verpflichtung vollendet insbesondere hinsichtlich des zur Tilgung einer Diebstahlsschuld zur Unfreiheit gerichtlich Verurteilten das großartige Gesamtbild rücksichtsvoll fürsorgender Humanität, welche das göttliche Recht selbst dem Verbrecher zuwendet (siehe Schmot S. 224 f.). Der mittellose und eben seiner Mittellosigkeit halber zur Tilgung der Ersatzschuld in die zeitliche Unfreiheit verkaufte Verbrecher wird nicht mit leeren Händen sich selber wiedergegeben. Die Bruderliebespflicht seines bisherigen Dienstherrn hat ihn mit einem kleinen Gütervorrat auszustatten und ihm damit eine fortan redliche Existenz zu ermöglichen. Darf doch wohl überhaupt unter dem Regime der jüdischen Zedakapflicht und des jüdischen Zedakarechts eine soziale Gesamtheit mit Beruhigung sich sagen: in ihrer Mitte sieht keiner aus Not zum Verbrechen sich getrieben. Durch das unermüdete Zusammenwirken öffentlicher und privater Wohltätigkeitsi>pflicht sind jedem die Wege zur Erhaltung und Wiedererlangung einer redlichen Existenz geöffnet, und nur jüdischer Zedakageist kann eine Gesellschaft vor Proletariat und Verbrecherverkommenheit schützen.

כי ימכר לך, “if your brother (fellow Jew) will be sold to you;” the reason why this paragraph has been written here is because the paragraphs written immediately preceding this one dealt with situations in which Jews have become poor, and how to forestall wholesale poverty amongst Jews.

או העברייה, whose father had sold her as a maid while she was a minor, and after a maximum of six years when the sh’mittah year arrives before she had become pubescent. (when she would be freed if her master or his son had not married her).

Rather, because of two novel teachings here, etc. You might ask: Why does Rashi not state another novel teaching — that a Hebrew (male) slave is not set free if his master mutilates the tips of his limbs. For the verse here compares him to the Hebrew maidservant, [and she is not set free if mutilated] as it is written in Parshas Mishpatim (Shmos 21:7). Perhaps the answer is: The rule stated by our sages, “Any segment of the Torah which is written and repeated — it is only repeated for the sake of a novel teaching,” applies only to a novel teaching stated explicitly in the verse. But it does not apply to [something like] this, which is merely an outcome of the comparison [between the slave and maidservant] (Re”m). But it seems to me: Regardless of the comparison here, we still would not learn that the Hebrew (male) servant is set free if mutilated. [This might have been attempted] through a fortiori reasoning from a Canaanite slave [as follows]: Regarding a Canaanite slave, who is not set free after six years. Nevertheless he is set free if mutilated. So then regarding a Hebrew slave, who is set free after six years, does it not logically follow that he too is set free if mutilated? But I would retort: A Hebrew maidservant disproves this logic. For she is set free after six years, but she is not set free if mutilated, and so a Hebrew slave would be the same. We could not learn through a fortiori reasoning from a Canaanite slave that a Hebrew maidservant is set free if mutilated, for Scripture writes explicitly that, “She shall not go out [free] in the manner of male slaves [if mutilated].” [It seems to me].

ובשנה השביעית "and in the seventh year, etc." The words "he will leave" are noticeably missing here (compare Exodus 21,2). The Torah's intention here is that on occasion such a servant will also have to work during the seventh year, such as if he escaped during this period. Even if the original six years may have expired before he was recaptured he has to complete six years of service. This is the ruling of Maimonides in chapter two of his treatise Hilchot Avadim. The Talmud Kidushin 16 derives this from the words "six years he shall serve" in Exodus 21,2. Perhaps we could derive from that latter verse that in the event the servant falls sick for four years he remains obligated to complete six years of labour. The extra letter ו in the expression ובשנה השביעית teach that if the servant escaped he has to make up the time even if it amounts to a whole year.

כי ימכר לך וגו׳: ein ersatzunfähiger Dieb durch das Gericht, oder ein minderjähriges Mädchen durch den völlig verarmten Vater (siehe Schmot 21, 2 u. 7). Ein Frauenzimmer wird eines Diebstahls wegen nicht verkauft (daselbst) und ist auch auf sie der רציעה-Akt (V. 17) nicht anwendbar. עבריה wird hier nur eingeschaltet, um für sie auch den Austritt mit dem siebten Jahre und die הענקה-Pflicht zu statuieren.

ועבדך, “and he will serve you;” the emphasis is on the pronoun ending “you,” which precludes this Jewish servant from being passed on to the heir of his master, even if the period for which he had been indentured had not come to an end. (Sifri)

ועבדך וגו׳ (siehe Schmot S. 223); חפשי daselbst).

תשלחנו חפשי מעמך “you have to release him unconditionally.” If he was released due to having fallen sick, and he recovered, and you felt that he should recompense you for the period that he was not working for you, the Torah writes: “in the seventh year he will go free, period,” regardless of whether he has rendered the required number of years of service. (Sifri on Exodus 21,2)

הענק תעניק THOU SHALT FURNISH HIM LIBERALLY — The noun from the root ענק denotes an ornament worn high up on the body which thus easily comes within sight of the eye (i.e. is conspicuous), (cf. ענק, a giant, someone who towers on high) — i.e. you shall furnish him with something that will make it patent that you have been kind to him. There are some who explain the word הענק to mean loading on his (the servant’s) neck.

הענק תעניק לו, ”make generous provisions for him, etc.” The word הענקה describes “something beautiful.” The idea is that the released servant’s new status should be visible to all so that he will enjoy a standing in the community. The word appears in the sense of jewelry in Proverbs 1,9. Alternatively, the word is related to ענקים, giants, and the meaning would be to give him great gifts.

The literal meaning of this is “adornment.” In other words: The master should adorn his slave lavishly, and this will indicate to the slave that his master treated him benevolently.

V. 14. ענק .העניק (siehe Bereschit S. 212). — לו, aber nicht dem מוכר עצמו (Wajikra 25, 39; Kiduschin 15 a). העניק וגו׳ מצאנך וגו׳ אשר ברכך וגו׳ ist כלל ופרט וכלל und gibt den Gesamtbegriff: vermehrungsfähige Naturalien aus dem Tier- und Pflanzenreiche, כל שישנן בכלל ברכה, nicht aber z. B. Geld (Kiduschin 17 a), und wird (daselbst) das Minimum zu einem Gesamtwerte von 30 Schekel, dem Normalsatze bei der Tötung eines עבד durch ein Tier (Schmot 21, 32) entsprechend, bestimmt.

מצאנך, מגרנך, ומיקבך, “from your flocks, your threshingfloor or your winepress.” These terms are short for “bread, wine, and meat.” The verse discusses a thief who has been sold by the court as he did not have the means to repay his victim for what he had stolen from him. Seeing that he is penniless, how could he establish an economic footing and not begin to steal again unless you provided him with these essentials? (B’chor shor)

מצאנך מגרנך ומיקבך [THOU SHALT FURNISH HIM LIBERALLY] OUT OF THY FLOCK, AND OUT OF THY FLOOR, AND OUT OF THY WINE PRESS — One might think I have this duty in respect to these things only! Scripture, however, states “that wherewith the Lord thy God hath blessed thee [shalt thou give him]” implying, of all with which thy Creator hath blessed thee. Why, then, are these alone specifically mentioned? To teach you the following: How is it with these things? They have the characteristic that they come under the term of “blessing”, (i.e. they possess the power of propagating) so, too, you are obliged to furnish him only with such things that come under the term “blessing”, thus excluding mules, (because they are sterile) (Sifrei Devarim 119:3; Kiddushin 17a). — Our Rabbis have derived in Treatise Kiddushin 17a by reasoning from the analogous expressions found in certain texts (גז"ש) what quantities one must give him of all the different kinds here mentioned.

Just as these are distinguished by their blessed status, etc. Flocks are [blessed because they] bear offspring and multiply. So, too, whatever grows from the earth. However, this excludes mules, since they do not bear offspring and multiply.

Also, the Rabbis derive in tractate Kiddushin through the gezeirah-shava comparison principle etc. I.e., the verse here says, “Do not send him away empty-handed,” and in Parshas Ki Sisa regarding a first-born son it says, “Do not appear before Me empty-handed (Shmos 34:20).” Just as regarding a first-born son the amount is twenty silver pieces, here too the amount is twenty silver pieces. From where do we know the amount regarding the first-born? [We know] from Yoseif, the first-born son of Rochel, who was sold to Egypt for twenty silver pieces.

וזכרת כי עבד היית AND THOU SHALT REMEMBER THAT THOU WAST A SERVANT [IN THE LAND OF EGYPT] — and I loaded thee with good things, and did so a second time — from the spoil of the land of Egypt and from the spoil at the Red Sea; so you, too, load him once, and do it again for him (Sifrei Devarim 120:1).

וזכרת כי עבד היית, not only did He take you out of bondage, but He saw to it that you were generously endowed with gold, silver, garments, etc.

כי עבד היית, and He took you out with great wealth.

וזכרת כי עבד היית, “You shall remember that you yourself used to be a slave;” G’d equipped you generously when you left Egypt, and when you gathered the loot at the sea.

V. 15. וזכרת וגו׳: Ich habe dich auch, bemerkt ספרי z. St, bei deinem Austritt aus der Knechtschaft in die Freiheit nicht leer ausgehen lassen, habe dich ברכוש גדול ausgestattet.

VV. 16 u. 17 (siehe zu Schmot 21. 5 u. 6). — ואף לאמתך. Die Sätze והיה כי יאמר und ולקחת sind nur eine untergeordnete Weiterausführung der vorhergehenden הענקה-Bestimmung, die ja den eigentlichen Gegenstand dieses Gesetzabschnittes bildet. Der ganze Akt der רציעה und dessen Folgen sind schon im Schmot ausgesprochen. Hier veranschaulichen sie nur, welchen mildfürsorgenden Zustand das Gesetz für den Knecht im Hause des Herrn voraussetzt. Es winkt ihm die Freiheit und er wird ihr mit einer entsprechenden Ausstattung wiedergegeben — und doch zieht er das Verbleiben in der Unfreiheit bei dem Herrn vor. והיה כי יאמר וגו׳ bis והיה לך עבד עולם ist daher mehr Parenthese und ואף לאמתך וגו׳ setzt das הענקה-Gebot fort.

עבד עולם [AND HE SHALL BE THY] SERVANT עולם — One might think that עולם has here its usual meaning: for ever! Scripture, however, states, (Leviticus 25:10) “[And ye shall sanctify the fiftieth year and proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof] and ye shall return every man unto his family”. Consequently, you learn that it (what Scripture terms here עולם), can only mean the period until the termination of that Jubilee cycle (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 21:6:6; cf. Rashi on that verse),

לך לעבד עולם, "for you as an eternal slave." Seeing that if the original master had died during the first six years of said servant's service he has to complete his term working for the master's son, the fact that he had his ear pierced לך, "for you," means that he will remain yours (the master's) forever but not your son's forever.

ואף לאמתך תעשה כן, to grant her a financial stake to establish herself.

ואף לאמתך תעשה כן, “and also to your servant maid you shall do likewise.” These words do not refer to the piercing of the ear-lobe of a female servant seeing there is no such procedure applicable to a woman. The words apply to the requirement to equip an outgoing female servant with a generous stake, not less than that of the male servant. Similarly, the words: “if he (the master) did not do either of these three things for her,” (Exodus 21,11) do not refer to the words כסות ועונה which appear next to it, but apply to the words אשר יעדה והפדה. A third example of the Torah writing words out of the immediate context is found in Exodus 22,2 אם זרחה השמש עליו, where the words שלם ישלם refer to the previous verse that four or five-fold payment has to be made, and not that payment depends on the deed having occurred in daylight.

Perhaps this follows the plain meaning? Etc. And we should not say: Perhaps this verse refers to a slave sold by the courts two or three years before the yovel — He goes free in the yovel, but a slave who has been pierced should serve forever, which is the plain meaning of the verse. For the answer is: A slave sold by the courts is set free because the verse says, “And he shall return to his family (Vayikra 25:41).” If so, then what is the verse, “Everyone shall return to his family, etc. (Vayikra 25:10),” referring to? It must mean that a slave who has been pierced is set free in the yovel. See Parshas Mishpatim (Shmos 21:6) and Parshas Behar (Vayikra ibid.).

ונתת באזנו ובדלת, “and you will thrust it (the awl) through his ear into the door;” the door frame is presumed to be made of wood and therefore can be pierced easily, as opposed to a door frame made of stone. (B’chor shor)

ואף לאמתך תעשה כן AND ALSO UNTO THY MAID SERVANT THOU SHALT DO LIKEWISE — i.e. furnish her out of thy property. One might think, however, that Scripture puts her on the same level with the man-servant concerning the piercing of the ear too! It however, states, (Exodus 21:5) “And if the man-servant (העבד) shall plainly say, [I love my lord … then … his lord shall bore his ear through with an awl]” — so you see that a man-servant must have his ear pierced, but a maid-servant does not have it pierced (Sifrei Devarim 122:6).

כי משנה שכר שכיר [IT SHALL NOT SEEM HARD UNTO THEE WHEN THOU LETTEST HIM GO FREE …] FOR [HE HATH BEEN WORTH] A DOUBLE HIRED SERVANT [UNTO THEE] — From here they (the Rabbis) derived the law that a Hebrew servant has to do service both by day and by night, and that is double as much as the labor of a man hired for day work only. And what is his service during the night? That his master gives him a Canaanite maid-servant with the object of raising children, and the children belong to the master (Sifrei Devarim 123:1; Kiddushin 15a).

לא יקשה בעיניך, to furnish him with some of your wealth upon his departure, seeing that he has served you faithfully and you will not become poor by doing so.

כי משנה שכר שכיר, "for twice as much as a hired hand, etc." Our initial reaction to these words would be that if the servant was sick for only three out of the six years he would not have to make up any time. Kidushin 15 derives from this verse that whereas a hired hand works only by day, a servant, i.e. עבד, works both by day and by night. Our verse alludes to this ruling.

לא יקשה בעיניך, when you dismiss her from your service having given him money, etc. משנה, double שכר שכיר, the wages paid to a hired hand, (the Torah knows that you paid him 6 years’ wages in advance, and with what you are giving when he leaves he has in effect received twice what a hired hand would have received.) In recognition of how you have treated him, G’d will bless you in all your undertakings. The meaning of this paragraph is similar to the admonition of the Torah in verse 10 and the use of the term רע בעיניך occurs also in such a sense in Deut. 28,56 when the reaction of even a mother and wife to the pressures of famine are described. רועת עין, describes envy and jealousy in matters financial. The same is true of the expression קשיות הלב, being hard-hearted. Both expressions refer to the feelings of a person when he has to give of his money to others who he does not feel have a claim on his money, on his generosity. Those commentators who understand our verse as speaking of the employer feeling put out at having to release their worker and the Torah telling the employer that he had no cause for the worker had worked diligently for six years are in error. The master knew in advance that after six years the contract was complete and the worker would be free to go. What possible reason could the employer have of being jealous of that arrangement?
Furthermore, the Torah should not have written משנה שכר שכיר, but merely משנה שכיר. Some commentators take the view that the words משנה שכיר refer to the six years, seeing that the average period for which a labourer was hired used to be 3 years, so that the word משנה would refer to the fact that this labourer worked for twice that period. The idea that the standard period was three years is reflected in Isaiah 16,14 This is also senseless, seeing that in Isaiah 21,16 we are told that the average period of hire was precisely a year, no longer. It follows that the words כשני שכיר (as the years of a hired hand) mean precisely 3 years just as when he is hired for a year it means precisely a year.

כי משנה שכר שכיר עבדך שש שנים, “seeing that for six years he served you twice as much as a hired hand would have done.” Normally a person does not hire himself out for more than three years (compare Choshen Mishpat 333,14: it is forbidden to hire himself out for more than three years). We have an allusion to this in Isaiah 16,14: “in three years, fixed like the years of a hired laborer.” Our sages derive from our verse that the Hebrew servant serves his master both by day and by night, seeing the master is allowed to give him his gentile slave-woman for him to sire children by her [a form of service, seeing the children will not be his. Ed.]. This is why the Torah described him as having performed double duty (compare Sifri Re'ey 123).

His master gives him [a Gentile maidservant], etc. I.e., The Hebrew slave may even be forced to take her. Otherwise [if the meaning is that he is merely allowed to take her], it is already written (Shmos 21:4), “If his master gives him a [maidservant] wife, etc.”

V. 18. לא יקשה וגו׳ kann sich nicht auf die Freilassung an sich beziehen; denn diese ist ja eine reine Rechtsfolge, er war ja nur auf sechs Jahre erworben und wäre ein jedes längere Behalten pure Gewalt. Es bezieht sich vielmehr auf die unmittelbar zuvor in תעשה כן erwähnte, bei der Entlassung geforderte הענקה-Bestimmung. Diese Forderung, welche das Gesetz an den Herrn bei Entlassung des Knechtes stellt, soll ihm nicht etwas Schweres, Hartes, dünken. ׳שכר שכיר .כי משנה וגו ist nicht die Leistung, sondern der Lohn eines Tagelöhners, und משנה שכר שכיר wie ומשנֶה כסף Bereschit 43, 15) das Doppelte an Geld, so: das Doppelte an Lohn, den doppelten Lohn eines Tagelöhners. עבדך, zu welchem משנה שכר das Objekt bildet, kann dann wohl nur in der Bedeutung: durch Dienst verdienen, erarbeiten stehen, wie Ezech. 29, 20. פעלתו אשר עבד בה נתתי לו, wo פעלה wie פעלת שכיר den erarbeiteten Lohn und עבד: durch Dienst verdienen bedeutet. Vielleicht ist auch משנה von שכר zu trennen, und es heißt: er hat doppelt dir für einen Tagelöhnerlohn gedient. Wajikra 25, 40 wird hinsichtlich der Behandlung eines עבד עברי die Weisung gegehen: כשכיר כתושב יהיה עמך, es kann der Herr nur Tagelöhnerleistung von ihm fordern, er wird daher bei Eingehung des sechsjährigen Dienstverhältnisses den Kaufpreis nur nach dem sechsjährigen Lohn eines Tagelöhners bemessen haben, von dem er nur während der Tageszeit Arbeit zu fordern berechtigt ist. Gleichwohl wird er von ihm größeren Nutzen gehabt haben. Er wird ihm auch nachts treue Dienste geleistet haben. Haben wir doch bereits (Schmot S. 225) nach dem Worte des ספרא auf das sittlich Große dieses ganzen Verhältnisses hingewiesen, in welchem der Herr den Knecht als Bruder behandeln, der Knecht sich gleichwohl als Knecht benehmen soll. Daher heißt es hier: Wenn du ihn bei seinem Austritt noch mit einem kleinen Gütervorrat ausstatten sollst und du dies etwa als etwas Übertriebenes ansehen wolltest, so bedenke, dass das, was er dir geleistet hat, auch weit über das hinausgeht, was du durch deine Zahlung bei seinem Kauf vergütet hast. Kiduschin 15 a wird dieses משנה שכר שכיר durch die Schmot 21, 4 dem Herrn eingeräumte Befugnis erläutert.

כי משנה שכר שכיר עבדך, “for he has worked for you twice as long as the wages that he received,“ a hired hand usually hires himself out for a period of three years. We know this from Isaiah 16,14: בשלש שנים כשני שכיר ונקלה כבוד מואב, “in three years, fixed like the years of a hired labourer, the glory of Moav shall shrink;” it follows that someone who has served his master for six years has actually served twice the length of a hired hand. The reason they hired such labourers for a period of three years was that if they had hired such a person for a term of a year or two years, sometimes the years are longer and sometimes they are shorter, depending it had more than one month of Adar. By making the term three years there could not be a dispute about how many days of labour this included.

לא יקשה בעיניך, “it shall not appear an unreasonably hard rule to you;” (that you have to give him so much for “free”) The Torah reminds the owner that he had obtained far more value in labour from this “slave” than he would have had from an ordinary hired labourer working for him as he had been at his disposal not only during the daylight hours, etc. [Our author suggests a different comparison, one found in Isaiah 16,14, according to which fixed labour is hired only for three years and this man has served six years. Ed.] Different calculations are made by different commentators; the basic common denominator agreed is that the Torah reminds the employer/owner, that this servant/slave has done more for him than a hired hand would have done. Ed.]

יברכך ה' אלוקיך, “the Lord your G-d will bless you.” Whenever the Torah asks members of the Jewish people to give up something they considered as belonging to them, we find a verse where G-d promises them that they will enjoy His blessing, i.e. that in the end instead of becoming poorer through sharing material blessings with the less fortunate members of society, they will become wealthier. They will experience beyond question that G-d will make all their undertakings successful.

כל הבכור ... תקדיש ALL THE FIRSTLING MALES … THOU SHALT SANCTIFY [UNTO THE LORD] — But in another passage (Leviticus 27:26) it states, “[Only the firstborn of the beasts …] one shall not sanctify it”? How can these be reconciled? The latter passage means: he must not dedicate it as a different sacrifice (i.e. offer it as an עולה or שלמים instead of as a בכור), whilst here it teaches that it is a duty to say: “Thou art holy as a firstborn!” Another comment is: It is impossible to say that “thou shalt sanctify” is to be taken literally, for it already states in another passage “one shall not sanctify it”; it is, on the other hand, also impossible to take “one shall not sanctify it” literally, since it states “thou shalt sanctify it”. How can these be reconciled? In the following manner: by taking תקדיש in our verse to imply: “thou mayest dedicate” so far as the dedication of its value (הקדש עלוי) is concerned, and then he must give a sum corresponding to the טובת הנאה in it to the Temple treasury, but you must not dedicate it as far as the altar is concerned (i.e. dedicate it as any sacrifice other than as a בכור) (Arakhin 29a: cf. Sifrei Devarim 124:4).

כל הבכור, after the Torah has listed a number of acts of kindness you are to perform with parts of your harvest in the field and orchard, something called the “tithe for the poor,” as well as an equivalent at the end of the sh’mittah year in money, i.e. the waiving of past due debts, acts of charity, and acts of helping your former servant to establish an economic base for himself, Moses now explains in detail commandments which are acts of gratitude vis a vis G’d, i.e. the giving to G’d or His representative the firstborn males of your livestock, i.e. sheep, goats and cattle. It is incumbent upon the owner of such herds to thank the Lord, for it is He Who is the source of his wealth. This is followed by repetition of the commandments to observe Passover, the commemoration of our obtaining political freedom, as well as the annual date on which the early barley harvest is acknowledged with an appropriate offering, and of Shavuot, the obtaining of our spiritual freedom when we received the Torah in capsule form, i.e. the Ten Commandments. Shavuot also ranks as the primary harvest festival celebrating the cutting of the wheat harvest.
Finally, we observe the Sukkot festival signaling that the last of the various harvests, particularly that of the trees has been successfully brought into the barns. On each of these festivals the farmer brings a gift for G’d with him when he makes the pilgrimage to Jerusalem and the Temple. This is spelled out in 16,16. Seeing that the occasion for this is one or all of these three festivals, there is no need for the Torah to mention a specific date as we all know the dates of these festivals. The Torah does mention the season during which these festivals occur, to remind us that they are connected with times of significance to each farmer.

תקדיש לה' אלוקיך, this means that you are to treat it as if sacred, i.e. not to shear its wool, not to use it to perform labour, etc. I have already explained the meaning of the words לא יקדיש איש אותו in Leviticus 27,26 as meaning that it cannot be designated as an offering for the altar.

.כל הבכור אשר יולד בבקרך ובצאנך הזכר תקדיש לה' אלו--היך, “every firstborn male animal which will be born among your cattle or sheep you shall sanctify for the Lord your G’d.” Although the firstborn animal already is holy from birth without need to be so designated, seeing the Torah makes its sanctity dependent on it being פטר רחם, “the opening of the womb,” the Torah wants the owner to also sanctify the animal by declaring it sacred with his mouth. (Erchin 29) The commandment includes use of the name of the Lord to Whom the animal is consecrated. If we find a verse (Leviticus 27,26) where the Torah writes: “a firstling which is the Lord’s cannot be consecrated by anybody,” this means that it cannot be consecrated to serve as a different kind of offering.

It is a mitzvah to declare ‘You are hereby consecrated as a firstborn.’ Otherwise, why is תקדיש (you must consecrate) necessary? For it is already consecrated.

V. 19. כל הבכור. Dieser ganze mit עשר תעשר begonnene מעשר שני-, צדקה ,-שמטת כספים ,-מעשר עני- und הענקה-Gesetzesabschnitt schließt mit erneuter Hervorhebung der בכור-Institution, welche die Basis aller dieser positiven göttlichen Verfügungen über unser Eigentum bildet. Alle diese Verpflichtungen sind kein Ausfluss des natürlichen Rechtes. Alle beruhen sie auf dem Grundfaktum, dass Gott, als er Israel zur Freiheit und Selbständigkeit aufrichtete, sein: "לי" über alle Personen und Güter seines künftigen Volkes aussprach, sich als den alleinigen wirklichen Eigentümer alles Eigentums in Israel setzte und damit sich die Verfügung über alle Personen und Güter reservierte. Und Träger und ewiger Verkünder dieses Grundfaktums aller unserer Personen- und Güterpflichten ist eben die בכור-Institution, zu welcher das bereits in diesem Abschnitt einleitend (Kap. 14, 23) erwähnte בכור בהמה טהורה-Gesetz gehört, welches eben der Gotthörigkeit und Weihe aller unserer Nahrungsgüter zur Basis dient und daher hier zum erneuten Ausspruch kommt. Es gehört aber dieses בכור בהמה טהורה-Gesetz mit zu denjenigen, die ihre Stelle in dem Kompendium der משנה תורה finden, da auch בכור ב׳׳ט seine Verwirklichung an der Stätte des Zentralheiligtums zu erhalten hat, und dessen Genuss ebenso wie מעשר שני auf den Stadtumkreis des Heiligtums beschränkt ist. Damit ist denn auch für diese Grundinstitution der Nahrungsgüterweihe das Bewusstsein wach gehalten, dass die Weihe an Gott gleichbedeutend ist mit der Weihe an sein im Nationalheiligtum ruhendes Gesetz, und dass jeder einzelne sein Eigentum nur von dem nationalen Standpunkt und der nationalen Bestimmung aus zur Verwendung bringen soll.

כל הבכור, “all the firstling males, etc.;” this paragraph has been written here seeing that previously the Torah dealt with the rules governing the treatment of a Jewish “slave,” i.e. someone employed by a fellow Jew not of his free choice, and not free to leave such employment at will. Here, in verse 19, the Torah imposes restrictions on how the owner of an animal is not free to treat such an animal as if it did not possess any rights, i.e. לא תעבוד בבכור שורך, “you shall not make the firstborn of your ox perform menial labour.” Not only that, but the Torah has repeated this legislation in order to teach us that a blemished firstling animal must not even be offered as a sacrifice to G-d. (unless it was not born through entering the world through its mother’s womb,

לא תעבד בבכור שורך ולא תגז וגו׳ THOU SHALT NOT WORK WITH THE FIRSTLING OF THY HERD, NOR SHEAR [THE FIRSTLING OF THY FLOCK] — The converse case also (working with the firstborn sheep and using the hair of the firstborn calf) have our Rabbis derived to be forbidden, but Scripture merely speaks of what usually occurs (Sifrei Devarim 124:6; Bekhorot 25a).

Another interpretation. One cannot say, “You must consecrate”, etc. The first interpretation is problematic: What is the mitzvah to declare, “You are hereby consecrated,” if it is already consecrated? Therefore Rashi says, “Another interpretation, etc.” And the second interpretation is problematic: For the term תקדיש (You must consecrate) implies that the animals itself must be consecrated, and not its monetary value. Therefore Rashi also says the first interpretation. This answers the question that is asked: Rashi’s second interpretation is the viewpoint of Rebbi Yishmael, but the first interpretation is the viewpoint of the Rabbis who argue with him, and the halacha follows the Rabbis. Why then does Rashi mention the viewpoint of Rebbi Yishmael if the halacha does not follow him? Perforce Rashi is only coming to explain the verse close to its simple meaning, and to set each matter in the verse properly.

Dieser wiederholte Ausspruch des בכור בהמה-Gebotes setzt übrigens die bereits in den übrigen Büchern niedergelegten Bestimmungen voraus und bringt einige wesentliche Ergänzungen derselben.

אשר יולד) (Ibn Ezra)

Then donate, to the sacred hekdesh domain, the value of its beneficiary payment. Re”m writes: Here Rashi explains, “Donate to hekdesh the value of its beneficiary payment.” But in tractate Erechin (29a) Rashi explains, “Donate to a kohein the value of its beneficiary payment,” which is difficult to understand. Furthermore: In tractate Bechoros (31a) the Mishnah says, “The monetary benefit of sacred animals that have been disqualified is given to hekdesh. They may be sold in the market and weighed in the usual manner; except for the firstborn and (animal) tithes, since their monetary benefit is given to their owners [the Kohanim].” Yet how can Rashi say here that the beneficiary payment of the firstborn is given to hekdesh? I found [a solution] written, which I think is correct: Rashi’s explanation here, "Then donate, to hekdesh, the value of its beneficiary payment,” is referring to a firstborn that was sanctified, for then its beneficiary payment is given to hekdesh. But there [in Erechin and Bechoros] is referring to a firstborn that was pledged, for all pledges are given to the Kohanim. Therefore Rashi explains there, “Give its beneficiary payment to the Kohanim.” See Erechin 28b, 29a.

כל הבכור וגו׳ הזכר, durch dieses הזכר wird nach Bechorot 19 a der Schmot 13, 2 allgemein gehaltene Begriff בכור auf זכרים beschränkt und verhält sich הזכר zu כל הבכור wie פרט zum בכור זכר .כלל könnte aber das erstgeborene Männliche bedeuten, selbst wenn eine weibliche Geburt vorangegangen wäre. Dem gegenüber erläutert dort die Beifügung פטר רחם den Begriff בכור nicht als den Erstgeborenen eines Geschlechtes, sondern als die Erstgeburt überhaupt, es ist dies die Form: כלל הצריך לפרט, dass nämlich der פרט nicht eine quantitative Beschränkung des Umfangs, sondern eine näher präzisierende Erläuterung des Inhalts des כלל ist. Und ebenso könnte der פרט: זכר פטר רחם noch den Fall einschließen, dass noch ein ולד יוצא דופן vorangegangen, dass somit das Jetztgeborene wohl בכור לרחמים, aber nicht בכור לולדות wäre, diese Möglichkeit wird durch das voranstehende בכור ausgeschlossen, und damit der gesetzliche Begriff dahin fixiert, dass nur בכור לכל מילי der absolute בכור, nicht aber בכור לדבר אחד dem gesetzlichen Begriff entspreche, der זכר muss zugleich בכור לרחמים ולולדות sein. Es ist dies die Form: פרט הצריך לכלל, indem der זכר פטר רחם :פרט nicht durch den vorangehenden כלל erweitert wird, sondern eine beschränkende Präzision erhält (daselbst nach Raschis Auffassung).

הזכר תקדיש, if such a firstling animal is male, you must treat it as holy for the Lord your G-d. You must offer such an animal to the Lord your G-d as His, and consume the parts that are permitted in a location that is sacred, after having performed the rites pertaining to sacrificial animals. The rituals are fewer than normal sacrificial offerings, as there is no need to perform s’michah, etc. i.e. the symbolic acts raising this animal to the status of being holy as such, as it has been born holy. (Talmud tractate Menachot, folio 90)

למעוטי שתפות נכרי :בבקרך ובצאנך(Chullin 135b) und so auch Bamidbar 3, 13: הקדשתי לי כל בכור בישראל ־ ולא באחרים(Bechorot 2a). Die mit קדושת בכור begründete Gotthörigkeit und Weihe alles Famileneigentums beruht so tief in der historisch gegebenen jüdisch-nationalen Geschichte und Bestimmung, dass sie nur dann eintreten kann, wenn sowohl das Muttertier als das Junge ausschließlich jüdisches Eigentum ist. Sobald aber vor der Geburt an dem Muttertier oder an dem Jungen einem Nichtjuden ein Mitanteilrecht geworden, so lässt dies die קדושת בכור nicht eintreten (Bechorot 3 a).

תקדיש לד׳ אלקיך, obgleich בכור קדוש מרחם, die קדושה von selbst mit der Geburt eintritt, so ist doch נולד לו בכור בתוך ביתו מצוה להקדישו, dem, welchem ein בכור in seinem Eigentumskreise geboren worden, es Mizwa, die קדושה auch in Wort darüber auszusprechen, eine Bestimmung, die sicherlich in der tiefen grundlegenden Bedeutsamkeit dieser קדושה für den Besitzkreis des Eigentümers wurzelt.

לא תעבד וגו׳ ולא תגז וגו׳. Dieses Verbot der גיזה ועבודה, das sich wie auf בכור, so auch auf alle קדשי מזבח erstreckt (Bechorot 25 a), ist nicht ein Ausfluss des allgemeinen מעילה-Gesetzes (Wajikra 5, 15 und Dewarim 12, 17). Es ergibt sich dies schon daraus, dass מעילה auch bei קדשי בדק הבית stattfindet, גיזה ועבודה jedoch מן התורה nur bei קדשי מזבח verboten ist (Bechorot daselbst), dass es hingegen bei קדשי מזבח selbst bei פסולי מוקדשין לאחר פדיונן aufrecht bleibt (siehe oben Kap. 12, 15).

לפני ה׳ אלהיך תאכלנה THOU SHALT EAT IT BEFORE THE LORD THY GOD — Scripture is speaking to the priest (not to the owner to whom תקדיש in the previous verse refers), for we find already stated that it (the בכור) is one of the dues of the priests whether it is unblemished (and its blood and fat portions are to be sacrificed on the altar and the flesh eaten by the priests), or whether it is blemished (when it must not be offered on the altar), for it states, (Numbers 18:18) “and the flesh of them (the firstborn animals, both the blemished and the unblemished) shall be thine” (the priest’s) (cf. Bekhorot 28a).

בשעריך) תאכלנו), “you may consume it in your cities.” The Torah refers to people who are authorized to eat it (priests).
שנה בשנה, “year by year;” this does not mean that it is forbidden to eat it after it has attained its first birthday as it has been compared elsewhere to the second tithe (Deut. 14,23), but it means that preferably it is to be eaten before it has attained its first birthday.
אתה וביתך, “you and your house,” i.e. the household of the priest.

Just as the second tithe is not disqualified from one year to the next, etc. As it is written regarding the tithes (above 14:28), “At the end of three years, separate all the tithes of your produce,” and Rashi explains, “This comes to teach that if one withheld his tithes, etc.”

V. 20. לפני ד׳ אלדיך וגו׳ (Bamidbar 18, 18) ist בכור בהמה טהורה als מתנת כהנה dem כהן zum Genusse wie חזה ושוק של שלמים überwiesen (siehe daselbst). Hier wird noch die Bestimmung gegeben, dass es Mizwa sei, jeden בכור im ersten Jahre seiner Geburt durch Opferung und Genuss in der Gottesstadt seiner Bestimmung zuzuwenden. Diese bei בכור wie bei מעשר (Kap. 14, 22) ausgesprochene שנה בשנהBestimmung lässt den Boden- wie den Herdensegen eines jeden Jahres für sich als ein besonderes in sich abgeschlossenes Augenmerk der göttlichen Fürsorge beherzigen, wie es ja Kap. 11, 12 heißt: ארץ אשר וגו׳ תמיד וגו׳ מראשית השנה ועד אחרית השנה (siehe daselbst).

שנה בשנה [THOU SHALT EAT IT BEFORE THE LORD …] YEAR BY YEAR — From here we derive the law that one should not defer it (i.e. sacrificing and eating it) beyond its first year (Bekhorot 28a). If so, one might think that it becomes invalid as a sacrifice as soon as its first year has passed! This is not the case, for it has been put in comparison with the second tithe, as it is said, (Deuteronomy 14:23; cf. Rashi on that verse): “and thou shalt eat before the Lord thy God the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herds, and thy flocks”. How is it in the case of the second tithe? It does not become invalid if left over from one year to the other (cf. Rashi on Deuteronomy 14:28 and 29), so, too, does the firstborn animal not become invalid under the same circumstances, only that it is a meritorious act to offer and consume it within its first year.

אתה וביתך, wie נאכל לכהנים לנשיהם ולבניהם ולעבדיהם :חזה ושוק (Sebachim 55 a).

שנה בשנה (may also be translated A YEAR WITH ANOTHER YEAR) — If one slaughtered it at the end of its first year (an the last day) he may eat it that day and the first day of the next year. This teaches us that it (a firstborn animal) may in all cases be eaten on two successive days and the intervening night (cf. Sifrei Devarim 125; Bekhorot 27b).

מום [AND IF THERE BE] ANY BLEMISH [THEREIN, IF IT BE LAME, OR BLIND, OR HAVE ANY ILL BLEMISH, THOU SHALT NOT SACRIFICE IT …] — any blemish is a general statement,

VV. 21 — 23. וכי יהיה בו מום וגו׳ בשעריך תאכלנו וגו׳. Die Untauglichkeit zum Opfer, welche ein מום dem Tiere bewirkt, ist bereits Wajikra 22, 29 f. ausgesprochen, und haben wir dort bereits (siehe S. 465 f. u. S. 484) den tiefen Gegensatz erläutert, in welchem ein mit einem leiblichen Gebrechen behaftetes Tier als קרבן zu der Lebenswahrheit stände, die in jedem die "Gottes Nähe" suchenden Opfer zum Ausdruck kommen soll. Es war aber diese Opferuntauglichkeit durch מום für בכור wohl deshalb noch besonders zu erwähnen, weil deren Wirkung für בכור sich von derjenigen bei anderen קדשים unterscheidet. Andere קדשים bedürfen, wenn sie durch מום zum קרבן untauglich geworden sind, noch der Auslösung, פדיון, um genossen werden zu dürfen (Wajikra 27, 11), בכור aber, wie bereits zu Bamidbar 18, 17 bemerkt, hat unter keinen Umständen פדיון. Wie seine קדושה nicht aus einem freien Weiheakt hervorgegangen, sondern mit der Geburt eintritt, so ist sie auch auf keine Weise ablösbar und übertragungsfähig. Vielmehr verbleibt ihm auch mit מום der מתנת כהונה-Charakter, er bleibt Eigentum des כהן und darf, sobald ihm ein מום קבוע geworden, von ihm, und durch ihn auch von jedem andern gegessen werden. Eben aber, weil sein היתר אכילה ohne פדיון eintritt, war für בכור auch noch besonders zu erwähnen, dass gleichwohl für ihn ebenso wie bei פסולי המוקדשים לאחר פדיונן die Rücksicht auf טהרה beim Genuss wegfällt und das Blutverbot aufrecht bleibt (siehe zu Kap. 12, 15 u. 16).

כל מום רע, “any serious blemish;” for instance the offering to G-d as a sacrifice of an animal born with a serious blemish. (Sifri)

פסח או עור LAME OR BLIND is a particularization,

Welche Gebrechen zum קרבן untauglich machen, ist bereits ausführlicher Wajikra 22. 20 f. ausgesprochen. Hier ist in der Form וכי יהיה בו מום פסח :כלל ופרט וכלל או עור כל מום רע, wobei noch dem כל מום רע die Kraft eines erweiternden רבוי innewohnt, der Begriff eines die Opferuntauglichkeit bewirkenden מום als: כל מומין שבגלוי ואינן חוזרין, sich nicht wieder reproduzierende sichtbare Leibesfehler definiert (Bechorot 37 a).

לא תזבחנו, “you must not sacrifice it;” the reason is clear, seeing that G-d had already declared this animal as being “Mine,” so how could the owner of its mother bring it as “his offering” (compare Exodus 12,9) From that verse I would have inferred that both perfect and blemished firstborn animals could not be offered as a sacrifice. This is why the Torah repeats here that we speak about a blemished firstborn male animal only.

כל מום רע ANY ILL BLEMISH — it again comprises them in a general statement. How is it with the blemishes particularised? They have the characteristic that each is a visible (external) blemish and the animal never returns naturally to its original condition (i.e. never becomes free from the blemish). So, too, the general statement includes all such blemishes that are visible and incurable [while in the case of a transitory blemish the animal may be sacrificed when the blemish has disappeared] (Bekhorot 37a; cf. Sifrei Devarim 126:2).

בשעריך תאכלנו, “you may eat it inside your gates;” a reference to the priest who may eat it outside the Temple.
הטמא והטהור. “the ritually impure together with the ritually pure,” an exclamation, referring to the word תאכלנו, “you may eat it,” telling the priest that even if he is in a state of ritual impurity he is allowed to consume this animal. If the meat of the animal is ritually impure however, eating it is forbidden on pain of the karet penalty (Ibn Ezra).

בשעריך תאכלנו, ”you shall eat it within your gates (not on sacred grounds);” the Torah here addresses the priest, as a commoner is not allowed to eat it anywhere.

הטמא והטהור, “the ritually impure as well as the ritually pure.” The author already explained this term in his commentary on Exodus 12,15.

רק את דמו לא תאכל ONLY THOU SHALT NOT EAT THE BLOOD THEREOF — This prohibition appears to be redundant, since the blood of no animal may be eaten, but it is mentioned, in order that you should not think: since it (the blemished firstborn animal) is something that in every respect is permitted originally it belonged to a forbidden class of animals — for, you see, it was holy and yet it may be slaughtered outside the Temple, and may be eaten without redemption — and consequently you might think that its blood is also permitted, Scripture therefore states, “However thou shalt not eat its blood”.

רק את דמו לא תאכל, “only its blood you may not eat.” The reason the Torah repeats this prohibition which was all inclusive anyway, is so that the priest should not think that seeing the whole subject is one dealing with something that had been originally forbidden [while the animal had been unblemished, Ed.]. becoming permitted, that this change in status included also the consumption of blood (compare Rashi).