Tafsiran yang Mengutip untuk Imamat 19:17

יפחתו לו בכבוד המקום – he (Rabbi Tzadok) is raising an objection on the matter of Rabbi Eliezer, for just as that you open [to elicit regret] with the honor of his father and mother, and we don’t suspect that perhaps he will lie, let him open [to elicit regret] with the honor of “the Place” (i.e., God) and they will inform him, that if you had known that you would be called wicket before “the Place” (i.e., God), you would never take a vow? But the Sages said to him according Rabbi Eliezer, that from here, you will not find you will not support them, for even Rabbi Eliezer admits to this, specifically that he may lie, for a person a person is not so impudent that he would not set aside something for the honor of “the Place” (i.e., God), and it is not similar to that of Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel (see Talmud Nedarim 22a) who opened [to elicit regret] for that person (Proverbs 12:18): “There is blunt talk like sword thrusts [But the speech of the wise is healing].” That there he says to him from the Biblical verses like that which is taught in our Mishnah (see Tractate Nedarim, Chapter 9, Mishnah 4) that he is transgressing on (Leviticus 19:17): “You shall not hate your kinfolk in your heart,” (Leviticus 19:18): “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your countrymen.” But when we mention to him the honor of God (i.e., המקום ), then he certainly is lying. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

So that he does not admonish him again and again, etc. In other words, if he admonishes [sometime before] his death, he would consider, “I will admonish them some today, and some tomorrow. For why should I admonish them all at once while I still have time tomorrow to admonish them?” But perhaps the other person might think he is being constantly admonished out of hatred, and therefore he will despise the admonishment. For this reason one should admonish shortly before his own death for all misconduct. You might ask: If so, why does Rashi explain above: “From whom did he learn this? From Yaakov, etc.” How does Rashi know this? Perhaps Moshe thought on his own to do so, as there are four reasons why one would not admonish, etc. The answer is: We know that none of these four reasons apply here. For we cannot say that they would leave Moshe, for where would they go? They only left Egypt in order to enter the Land of Israel. Also we cannot say that [the reason not to admonish them is] so they should not be ashamed of him, since he is admonishing the entire Jewish People together. And Rashi’s statement, “Why did I not admonish you, etc,” is only an explanation for Yaakov. You might ask: It is written, “You shall surely rebuke (Vayikra 19:17),” and Rashi explains, “Even a hundred times.” The answer is: “You shall surely rebuke” applies at the time of the offense. And “So that he does not admonish him again and again,” applies after the offense has been done.

Rabbi Meir also said: They release [the vow] by using what is written in the Torah, and they say to him, “Had you known that you were violating [the prohibitions]:
“You shall not avenge” (Leviticus 19:18),
“You shall not bear a grudge” (ibid.),
“You shall not hate your kinsfolk in your heart (ibid., v. 17),
“Love your neighbor as yourself” (ibid., v. 18),
“Let him live by your side” (ibid. 25:37), for he might become poor and you would not be able to provide for him, [would you have vowed]?”. And should he reply, “Had I known that this is so, I would not have vowed,” he is permitted [the vow is absolved].
In this mishnah Rabbi Meir teaches that the Sages may tell a person that by making a vow prohibiting another person from using his things he has transgressed several commandments in the Torah, and if he expresses regret, they may use that regret as grounds for releasing the vow.
The type of vow being released in this mishnah is one in which a person prohibits his fellow Jew from benefiting from all or part of his property. This very act is actually a transgression of five separate commandments, four of which are found in Leviticus 19:17-18. The fifth commandment is that a Jew may not let his fellow become poor but rather they must live “side by side”, which is interpreted here to mean, that those who have means must aid those who do not. If the one who vows admits that had he known that his vow would cause him to transgress so many commandments he would not have vowed, he may be released from his vow.
In my opinion this mishnah is emblematic of Jewish social ethics. The mitzvot regarding concern for one’s neighbor and love for one’s fellow human being, are not merely ideals, left for individuals to pursue according to their own understanding. Rather they have real manifestations in this world and govern our everyday actions. Judaism is a religion in which ideals are translated into laws, which dictate precisely how a Jew is to live. The laws of “love” dictate that a vow which prohibits one’s property to another is a sinful vow which should be released.

Then Shlomo built a Bomoh [altar]. Our Rabbis said, that because he did not protest against his wives, it is called by his name.³Maseches Shabbos 56b. A Jew is responsible for the behavior of those subject to his influence. The Torah demands, “you shall reprove your fellow and do not bear a sin on his account” [Vayikra 19:17], implying that if you fail to reprove him, you will bear his sin.—Ralbag

וכי יהיה איש שנא לרעהו BUT IF A MAN HATE HIS FELLOW [AND LIE IN WAIT FOR HIM] — It is through his hatred that he comes to such a point as to “lie in wait for him”. From here they (the Rabbis) derived their statement: If a man transgresses a light command he will in the end transgress a weighty command; — because he transgressed the command (Leviticus 19:17) “Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart”, he will in the end come to such a point as to shed blood. It is for this reason that it is stated here, apparently redundantly, “but if a man hate his fellow [and lie in wait for him]”, for it ought to have written only: “But if a man rise up and lie in wait for his fellow and smite him mortally” (Sifrei Devarim 186:2).

ושם לה עלילת דברים that HE WILL IMPUTE ACTIONS UPON HER BY MERE WORDS (i.e. he will slander her); one sin brings another sin in its train: if he transgresses the prohibition “thou shalt not hate [thy fellow]” (Leviticus 19:17), the end will be that he will fall into slander (cf. Sifrei Devarim 235:3).