Comentários de Citação sobre Levítico 27:13

Humbly and with the assistance of the Divine Dispenser of wisdom, we [too] have derived [the source of various halachos] by examining the Scriptural nuances. Heaven forbid, would we be deriving original interpretations³⁸The Netziv is referring to originating new laws based on these derivations; rather by examining the Scriptural nuances, we have been able to [connect the verses to] many traditions and laws that have been cited in the Gemorah. For example, by applying examination to the verses in the Torah reading of B’Chukosai, we have shown [the source of the halacha stated] by Rava that hekdesh mafkia midei shibud, “consecration cancels the lien of a creditor,”³⁹ If a borrower designates his property (real or moveable) for collection in case he is unable to pay his obligation (called apotiki), and then consequently consecrates his property to the Temple or as a sacrifice, the lender’s lien is dissolved. See Tractates Yevamos 46a, 66b, Kesuvos 59b, Gittin 40b and Bava Kamma 89b. and thus this halacha ⁴⁰The Netziv, in Ha’amek Davar to Lev. 27:15, describes the scriptural source for Rava in the following manner: “Lev., Chapter 27 describes how when one redeems items consecrated to the Temple, he is to pay the valuation money (i.e. the principle) plus a fifth. When stating the redemption of houses in verse 15 and fields in verse 19, the one performing the redemption is described as the one ‘who consecrated it’: whereas pertaining to the redemption of animals described in verse 13, there is no mention of ‘who consecrated it, but it merely states ’if he redeems it.’ Rava in Bava Metzia 54b infers from ‘who consecrated it’ stated about the redemption of houses, that the one who consecrated the house in the first place adds a fifth; however if one redeems an item that he had used to redeem something else he does not add a fifth.” The Netziv asks why it is also necessary to state in verse 19 that the field is redeemed by “who consecrated it,” as it is obvious that the one who redeems it is the one who consecrated it, i.e. the original owner? Further why is the phrase “who consecrated it” not stated also in the verse discussing the redemption of animals? The Netziv answers that it is from these words that Rava infers that “consecration cancels the lien of a creditor.” It is only the one who sanctified it who is the subject of the verse – not anyone else who may have a lien on the field such as a lender. The fact that redemption is effective demonstrates that any existing liens on the property were cancelled by the owner’s sanctification. It was not necessary to state about the redemption of animals, “who sanctified it” – as it is self-understood that the verse would not need to exclude the case of a lender; as animals are not usually used as apotiki , since they can be hidden or smuggled away (see Rashi in Tractate Bava Metzia 67b). becomes greatly illuminated.⁴¹This understanding of the scriptural source, i.e. the redemption of consecrated fields, “supports the Rambam’s opinion in Hilchos Arachin 7:14, that the law that consecration cancels the lien of a creditor,” applies to any form of consecration, unlike the opinion of Rashi and Tosafos that the lien of the creditor is only cancelled with consecration of an animal for a sacrifice. There are many more [inferences found] in this Book [of Leviticus]. We have already shown in our compilation Ha’amek She’elah in siman 67⁴²Tractate Megillah 4a states that according to R. Yehoshua ben Levi, one is obligated to read the Megillah in the evening and to repeat it in the day, as it is written in Ps. 22:3: “My God, I cry in the daytime, but You have not answered, and at night and am not silent.” R. Chelbo stated the ruling of R. Yehoshua b. Levi based on the verse, “So that Your glory be sung to You [i.e. by day] and not be silent [i.e. by night]. O Lord, my God, I will give praise to You forever” (Ps. 30: 13). When citing this halacha, the She’iltos only quotes the latter verse and not the former. The Netziv explains that the She’iltos is of the opinion that according to R. Yehoshua, the Megillah may be read in the evening beginning with plag hamincha, 1¼ halachic hours before sunset. The Netziv states a rule that when a verse states “lailah,” night, in reference to the performance of a mitzvah, the mitzvah may only be performed at night beginning with tzeis hakochavim, the appearance of three stars. The She’iltos, by not referencing the verse from Ps. 22:3 which states “night,” is stressing that the time for reading the Megillah begins with plag hamincha, even before the appearance of three stars. See Netziv ad loc., where he explains how the She’iltos interprets Ps. 22:3 in the following manner: “’My God, I cry in the daytime… even though at night I am not silent.’ Even if I delay the reading of the Megillah to the night, i.e. tzeis hakochavim, which is considered nighttime for every mitzvah, I still need to read the Megillah again by day.” and 103⁴³When listing the seven relatives for which a Kohen may defile himself, Lev. 21:1-3 states, ”Let none [of you] defile himself for a dead person among his people, except for his she’ar who is close to him… he shall defile himself.” The Sifra (1:4) translates “his she’ar” as “his wife” based on Lev. 18:12, “The nakedness of your father’s sister you shall not uncover, she is your father’s she’ar.” The Netziv explains that the Sifra accords with R. Elazar, cited in Tractate Kesuvos 47b, that she’ar means conjugal relations and that she’ar is associated with “wife” – as she is the one who is designated for such a relationship. The Sifra translates Lev. 18:12 as, “The nakedness of your father’s sister you shall not uncover, she is like your father’s conjugal relations” – meaning due to the close relationship between your father and his sister, if one has relations with his aunt, it is considered as if he is having conjugal relations with his father. However, the She’ltos writes that she’ar means wife based on Ex. 21:10: “He shall not diminish her she’ar, her clothing.” The Netziv explains that the She’iltos follows the opinion of R. Eliezer ben Yaakov in Kesubos ad loc., that she’ar means “flesh,” and expounds Ex. 21:10 as, “He shall not diminish according to her flesh (bodily state), her clothing, (or clothing) needed for the particular season of the year.” Since she’ar means flesh, we thus know that “his she’ar who is close to him,” stated in Lev. 18:21 is referring to the Kohen’s wife, who is his flesh, similar to how Gen 2:24 describes Adam and Eve as “becoming one flesh.” Thus according to the She’iltos, Ex. 21:10 is not including a Biblical requirement for the husband to provide his wife with conjugal relations. that our master the Sheiltos attributes many halachos in the Gemorah to Scriptural inferences not stated in the Talmud; and with the noting of these Scriptural inferences, the halacha becomes further clarified.