Midrash su Levitico 23:22

“Judah was exiled due to affliction and great enslavement. She settled among the nations, did not find rest; all her pursuers have overtaken her within the straits” (Lamentations 1:3).
“Judah was exiled.” Are the nations of the world not exiled? Rather, even though they are exiled, their exile is not exile. The nations of the world who eat of their bread and drink of their wine, their exile is not exile.⁸³They assimilate into their new surroundings, symbolized by the fact that they consume the bread and wine of the people in their new surroundings. Consequently, they do not experience exile as acutely as Jews experience it. Israel, who do not eat of their bread and do not drink of their wine, their exile is exile. The nations of the world, who walk in their garments,⁸⁴They adopt the mode of dress of their new surroundings. their exile is not exile, but Israel, who walk barefoot, their exile is exile. That is why it is stated: “Judah was exiled.” Here it is stated: “Judah was exiled [galeta],” and there it is stated: “Judah was exiled [vayegal] from upon its land” (Jeremiah 52:27),⁸⁵The verse in Jeremiah uses the feminine form while the verse in Lamentations uses the masculine form. for once they were exiled, their power waned like a female. That is why it is stated: “Judah was exiled [galeta].”
“Due to affliction [me’oni],” it is because they ate leavened bread on Passover, just as it says: “You shall not eat with it leavened bread; seven days you shall eat with it unleavened bread, the bread of affliction [oni]” (Deuteronomy 16:3). Alternatively, “due to affliction [me’oni],” because they took the collateral of a poor man [ani] into their homes, just as it says: “If he is a poor man, you shall not sleep with his collateral” (Deuteronomy 24:12). Alternatively, “due to affliction [me’oni],” because they withheld the wages of hired laborers, just as it says: “You shall not exploit a poor [ani] or indigent hired laborer” (Deuteronomy 24:14). Alternatively, “due to affliction [me’oni],” because they stole the gifts of the poor, just as you say: “You shall leave them for the poor [ani] and the stranger” (Leviticus 19:10, 23:22). Alternatively, “due to affliction [me’oni],” because they ate the tithe of the poor; Rabbi Beivai and Rabbi Huna [said] in the name of Rav: One who eats produce from which the tithe of the poor was not taken is liable to receive the death penalty. Alternatively, “due to affliction [me’oni],” because they engaged in idol worship, just as it says: “It is a sound of crying [anot] that I hear” (Exodus 32:18).⁸⁶Moses said this when he heard the sound of the people worshipping the Golden Calf. Rabbi Aḥa said: It is the sound of lauding idol worship that I hear.⁸⁷This is Rabbi Aḥa’s explanation of the phrase from Exodus 32:18. Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Yosei: There is no generation that does not receive [punishment] due to the sin of the Calf.

1) (Vayikra 23:24) ("Speak to the children of Israel, saying: On the seventh month, on the first day of the month, there shall be for you a Sabbath, a remembrance of teruah, a holy calling.") "the children of Israel … a holy calling," and not gentiles, (even though they, too, are judged on Rosh Hashanah.) If "the children of Israel," I would know only "the children of Israel" per se. Whence would I derive (for inclusion) proselytes and bondsmen? From (the superfluous) "for you." "a Sabbath (Shabbathon) a remembrance of teruah, a holy calling": "a Sabbath": R. Eliezer says: "a Sabbath": This is (the blessing over) the holiness of the day. "a remembrance": This is (the section of) zichronoth. "teruah": This is shofaroth. "a holy calling": Sanctify (the day) by abstaining from labor. R. Akiva (to R. Eliezer): Why should we not say that "Shabbathon" refers to abstention from labor, for this is the prime thrust of the verse? "Remembrance" is zichronoth." teruah": This is shofaroth. "a holy calling": This is the holiness of the day. And whence do we derive that (the section of) malchuyoth (Kingship) is included with them? From (Vayikra 23:22) "I am the L–rd your G d" (i.e., your King) … (Vayikra 23:24) "on the seventh month, etc." (i.e., on Rosh Hashanah). R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah says: This (the above derivation) is not necessary. It is written (Bamidbar 10:10) "Let this be a remembrance before your G d. (I am the L–rd your G d.") Let this (the seemingly) superfluous "I am the L–rd your G d") not be written. It must serve, then, as a prototype (binyan av) to teach that whenever "remembrances" are mentioned, "Kingships" are to be juxtaposed with it.

(Exodus 23:3) "Do not honor a poor man in his quarrel": Why is this needed? (i.e., it is already written [Leviticus 19:15] "You shall not favor a poor man (in the verdict) and you shall not honor a great one.") (From that verse) I would know only these (i.e., favoring the poor and honoring the rich). Whence do I derive that they ("favoring" and "honoring") are interchangeable, (both applying to the rich and the poor)? From "Do not honor a poor man." Abba Chanan says in the name of R. Elazar: Scripture speaks of leket, shikchah, and peah (i.e., it is "in his quarrel" that you are not to honor a poor man, but you are to honor him by deciding in his favor in instances of doubt as to whether something is leket, shikchah or peah, [which revert to the poor] viz. Leviticus 23:22.)