Behar/Bechukotai
Rabbi Bernard Fox
“When you make a sell
to your friend or make a purchase from your friend, one person should not
aggrieve his brother.” (VaYikra 25:14)
“And a person should
not aggrieve his friend. And you should
fear your G-d. I and Hashem your G-d.” (VaYikra 25:17)
The first passage
above commands us against ona’ah – overcharging or underpaying in a commercial
exchange. A seller is entitled to a
reasonable price for his product and a buyer is entitled to bargain for a
reasonable sale price. However, it is
not permitted to charge an unreasonable price that takes advantage of the
buyer’s situation or ignorance. Neither
is it permitted for the purchaser to take advantage of the ignorance of the seller
or the situation in which the seller may find himself.
A few passages later
the Torah returns to this theme. It
tells us that we are prohibited from aggrieving one another. This behavior is also referred to as ona’ah. Our Sages were concerned with the meaning of
this second passage. The first passage
already indicates that ona’ah is prohibited in trade. This second passage cannot be a repetition of the same
prohibition against inappropriate commercial dealings. What is the new message in the second
passage?
The Sages were
troubled by a second issue. The second
passage warns us that we should fear Hashem.
Of course it is important to fear Hashem! Why does the Torah suddenly admonish us to fear Hashem? The Sages concluded that this admonishment
must in some way be related to the first portion of the passage that commands
us to not aggrieve our neighbor. What
is this connection?
The Sages explained
that this second passage is not referring to ona’ah of one’s neighbor in
commercial dealings. Instead, it is a
prohibition against ona’at devarim – aggrieving another person with words. In other words, we are prohibited from
verbally abusing a person.
The Sages explained
that this interpretation of the passage accounts for the inclusion of the
admonition to fear Hashem. Ona’at
devarim – verbal abuse – can often be justified or rationalized. Sometimes the abuse is subtle and not
overt. We can tell ourselves that we
really meant no harm. Also, sometimes
we can rationalize the manner in which we speak with others by claiming to
ourselves that our intention was only to correct the other person and not to
embarrass or harass him. Therefore,
only the one who delivers the abuse and Hashem know the true intent of the
statement. The passage tells us that we
may be able to fool others regarding our intent. But we cannot deceive Hashem.[1] Perhaps, the Torah is telling us that we
often keep our behaviors within the boundaries of civility because we do not
want to loose the respect of our peers.
In instances of ona’at devarim, we can sometimes explain away our
behavior and retain the respect of our peers.
This removes one of the fundamental motivators that regulate civil
interaction – our desire to be perceived by others in a positive light. The
Torah forewarns us that in order to motivate ourselves in the observance of
this command, we must recognize that although we can delude our peers regarding
our intention, we cannot mislead Hashem.
Maimonides’ treatment
of the prohibition against ona’at devarim is somewhat odd. In his code of law – the Mishne Torah –
Maimonides places his discussion of this prohibition in the laws regulating
commerce. Specifically, after his
discussion of the laws regarding overcharging or underpaying in commerce – ona’at
mammon – Maimonides discusses the laws of ona’at devarim. This is not the location in which we would
expect to find this discussion.
Instead, we would expect that Maimonides would place his discussion of ona’at
devarim in Hilchot Dayot. Hilchot Dayot
discusses healthy behaviors and personality disorders. Included in this discussion are the
prohibitions against improper speech.
For example, in Hilchot Dayot, Maimonides discusses the prohibition
against defamation and gossip. We would
expect Maimonides to include the prohibition against ona’at devarim in this
discussion. Why does Maimonides instead
place the prohibition against ona’at devarim in the laws regulating commerce?
It is helpful to
consider Maimonides’ examples of ona’at devarim. Not all forms of verbal abuse are included in this
prohibition. Maimonides provides four
basic examples. First, it is prohibited
to embarrass a person regarding his past or family history. For example, one may not remind a convert
that his ancestors were not Jewish.
Neither is it appropriate to remind a person who has repented from
various wrong-doings of his former errors.
Second, it is prohibited to say to a person who is suffering from
misfortune that his misfortune is due to some failing in his
righteousness. Third, it is prohibited
to provide someone with false directions.
For example, if a person asks for directions to the bank, one may not
provide the person with directions to a different location. Fourth, ona’at devarim prohibits asking a
person a question that one knows he cannot answer, simply to embarrass the
person.[2] What is the common factor in these
examples?
It seems that
according to Maimonides, ona’at devarim always involves hurting a person
through taking advantage of a weakness in the person or in his background. Simply insulting a person is not included in
the prohibition. In each example given
by Maimonides, the victim has some weakness or some area of sensitivity in his
life or background. The person who
violates the prohibition of ona’at devarim has used this weakness of area of
sensitivity as a basis for hurting the victim.
Essentially, the prohibition of ona’at devarim sanctions against taking
advantage of a person’s weaknesses.
This provides some
insight into Maimonides’ placement of this prohibition in the laws governing
commerce. These laws are designed to
assure fair, reasonable, and honest trade among the members of society. The laws are needed because the Torah
recognizes that without regulation it is not likely that fair, reasonable, and
honest trade will be assured. Commerce
takes place among trading partners that are not necessarily equals in power and
influence. Without regulation, the
rights of all parties in a commercial endeavor would not be established or
protected.
The prohibition
against ona’at devarim expresses this objective. The prohibition is designed to prevent a buyer or seller from
taking advantage of the ignorance or weaker bargaining position of the opposite
party in the negotiation in order to secure an unreasonable price. Essentially, it prohibits taking unfair
advantage of a person in business dealings.
In short, all of these laws that govern commerce are designed to foster
and nurture healthy, ethical relationships within a society.
We can now begin to
appreciate Maimonides placement of the prohibition against ona’at devarim among
the laws of commerce and not among the laws regulating inappropriate
speech. As explained above, Hilchot
Dayot discusses the elements of a healthy personality and the proper behaviors
that are associated with a healthy personality. Apparently, Maimonides feels that the Torah’s primary objection
to gossip and tale-bearing is that these behaviors are expressions of
personality flaws. It is true that
these behaviors hurt others. But the
Torah’s prohibition focuses on the damage done to the person involved in these
self-destructive behaviors. Therefore,
the prohibitions against these forms of improper speech are placed in Hilchot
Dayot.
However, Maimonides
understands ona’at devarim as a prohibition against verbally taking advantage
of a person’s weaknesses and sensitivities.
Ona’at devarim is prohibited because it is divisive and destructive to
society. Therefore, Maimonides places
this prohibition among the laws of commerce.
The prohibition against ona’at devarim and the laws of commerce share
the common theme of fostering healthy, constructive relations among the members
of society.
Maimonides’ treatment
of ona’at devarim is reflected in the comments of Sefer HaChinuch. In describing the objective of the
prohibition against ona’at devarim, Sefer HaChinuch comments that the law is
designed to foster peace and discourage discord among the members of society.[3] These comments seem to clearly reflect
Maimonides’ understanding of the prohibition.
Finally, it is worth
noting that Maimonides’ understanding of the prohibition against ona’at devarim
is reflected in our parasha’s treatment of the law. The prohibition against ona’at devarim is juxtaposed to the
prohibition against ona’at mammon. This
implies that both prohibitions share a common theme. Maimonides suggests that this theme is the importance of creating
and nurturing social cohesion and cooperation.
BeChukotai
“Then the land will be
appeased for its Sabbaths – all the years that it s desolate and you are in the
land of your enemies. Then the land
will rest and be appeased for its Sabbaths.”
(VaYikra 26:34)
Parshat BeChukotai
begins with a promise of rewards and a warning of punishment. If Bnai Yisrael is faithful to the Torah
they will be rewarded with peace and prosperity in the Land of Israel. Disregard for the Torah will be punished by
disease, famine, invasion and eventually exile from the land.
The above pasuk is
part of the narrative of the punishments.
We care told that while we are exiled from the Land of Israel, the land
will be appeased for the Sabbatical years that were not observed by the
nation. In order to understand the
meaning of this passage, it is important to review the mitzvot of the
Sabbatical year and the Jubilee year.
These mitzvot are discussed in last week’s parasha. In the land of Israel the years are divided
into cycles of seven years. The seventh
year of each cycle is the Shemitah year – the Sabbatical year. During the Shemitah year the land is not
worked. Seven of these cycles include
forty-nine years. The fiftieth year is
the Yovel – Jubilee year. During Yovel
the land may not be farmed. In
addition, the land is redistributed.
Land returns to the descendants of the individuals who originally
inherited the Land of Israel. Another
law of the Yovel is that all Jewish slaves are freed.
With this explanation
of the Shemitah and Yovel years we can begin to understand the message of our
passage. The first exile from the land
of Israel lasted for seventy years.
Rashi explains that this period of seventy years corresponded with the
number of Shemitah and Yovel years that Bnai Yisrael neglected to observe. Rashi explains that the meaning of our pasuk
is that during the exile the land will be desolate. It will not be cultivated and its produce will not be
collected. The land will be in the same
state that is required during the observance of the Shemitah and Yovel
years. These seventy years of
desolation will atone for the seventy Shemitah and Yovel years that the people
did not observe while they occupied the land.[4]
It is interesting that
the Torah characterizes the exile as a response for the failure to observe the mitzvot
of Shemitah and Yovel. Of course, these
are important mitzvot. However, it is
interesting that the Torah specifically warns us about these mitzvot and warns
us that the neglect of these mitzvot will be punished by exile. What is special about these mitzvot?
In order to answer
this question, it is important to recognize who the Torah is addressing in this
weeks parasha. Of course, this message
is relevant to us, but it is addressed to the generation that was to emerge
from the wilderness and take possession of the land. Sforno develops this idea in his commentary on last week’s parasha
– Parsaht BeHar. Parshat BeHar deals
primarily with the mitzvot of Shemitah and Yovel and the laws related to these mitzvot. Sforno asks why these laws are discussed by
the Torah at this point. He observes
that originally, the generation that was redeemed from Egypt was to travel
through the wilderness, emerge from the wilderness and then take possession of
the Land of Israel. This plan changed
only later when this generation proved unworthy of taking possession of the
land. Moshe tells this generation that
they will take possession of the land and must observe the mitzvot of Shemitah
and Yovel. He warns the people that their failure to observe these mitzvot and
their related laws will result in their exile from the land.[5] Sforno’s comments provide a first step
towards answering our question. It is
clear from Sforno’s comments that observance of these mitzvot is fundamental to
establishing a proper relationship between the people and the Land of
Israel. Because of these mitzvot are
directly relevant to this relationship, failure to observe them results in
exile from the land. However, Sforno
does not explain why are these mitzvot so fundamental to the nation’s
relationship with the land?
Before we can fully
appreciate the answer to this question, we must identify the transition that
was to inevitably take place with the possession of the land. In the wilderness the nation was completely
and obviously dependant upon Hashem.
The wilderness did not contain adequate water or food. The survival of the nation during its
travels in the wilderness was only possible through the intervention of
Hashem. At every encampment Hashem
provided the nation with a source of water.
Each day – except Shabbat – manna fell from the heavens and provided the
nation with sustenance. Bnai Yisrael
were constantly reminded of their dependency on Hashem and their own
helplessness. This would change with
the possession of the land. The people
would enter a land “flowing with milk and honey.” They would plant crops and reap bountiful harvests. This would create an obvious challenge.
In the wilderness, the
presence of Hashem was constantly evident in the lives of the people. Hashem was not just an abstract theological
concept. His presence was evidenced by
the daily experiences and the very survival of the nation in this hostile
environment. Once the people entered
the land they would live off the prosperity of the Land of Israel. Hashem’s presence would not be clearly
evidenced each day. It would be easy
for the people to forget about Hashem and to begin to believe that their own
efforts were the source of their comfort and prosperity. In other words, possession of the land
presented a strange paradox. The
abundance of the land of Israel was a blessing. It was provided to the people so that they would be free to
develop spiritually without the distraction of a struggle for material
survival. However, the real danger
existed that the land’s very abundance might result in exactly the opposite
outcome. The people might be seduced by
their material wealth and begin to believe that there efforts were the true
determinant of their fates. They would
become absorbed in material lives and deny the dependence of all human beings
on the benevolence of Hashem.
We can now appreciate
the mitzvot of Shemitah and Yovel.
These mitzvot directly address this danger. Sefer HaChinuch explains that the seven year Shemitah cycle
reinforces the Torah’s contention that the universe is not eternal. The land is worked for six years and rested
in the seventh year. This recalls that
Hashem created the universe in six days and rested from creation of the seventh
day. In addition, resting the land and the requirement to share the produce of
the seventh year express Hashem’s authority over us and the land. He has this authority as creator.[6] Similarly, Yovel reinforces the idea that
everything belongs to Hashem. He gives
the land and all other elements of the material world to whom He pleases. In this case, He wishes that the land should
be redistributed according to the distribution that was established when the
land was initially divided.[7] In short these mitzvot are devised to remind
us that the land is really Hashem’s. He
is the creator. He is the true master
of the land and He has the ultimate authority over its use. Through observing these mitzvot that land
becomes a reminder of the presence and authority of Hashem. The natural tendency to forget Hashem is
countered by a powerful reminder of His presence and authority.
Of course, the mitzvot
of Shemitah and Yovel can only achieve these goals when they are observed. If they are neglected they cannot act as
reminders of Hashem’s presence and authority.
This results in an interesting dynamic.
The possession of the land can undermine our relationship with
Hashem. The mitzvot of Shemitah and Yovel
are designed to counter this tendency.
If we neglect these mitzvot, our relationship with the land and with
Hashem will quickly, further deteriorate.
Therefore, the Torah directly links possession of the land with
observance of these mitzvot. If we are
to retain possession, these mitzvot must be observed. We are warned that if we abandon these mitzvot, we will be
exiled.
In short, The Torah
recognizes that the very blessings that the nation will enjoy in the land can
act as a distraction from spiritual growth and observance of the mitzvot. Therefore, it stresses the importance of the
mitzvot of Shemitah and Yovel and warns that failure to observe these mitzvot
will result in exile.
[1] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak
(Rashi), Commentary on Sefer VaYikra
25:17.
[2] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon
(Rambam / Maimonides) Mishne Torah,
Hilchot Mechirah 14:13-14.
[3] Rav Aharon HaLeyve, Sefer HaChinuch, Mitzvah 341.
[4] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer VaYikra 26:34.
[5] Rabbaynu Ovadia Sforno, Commentary on Sefer VaYikra, 25:1.
[6] Rav Aharon HaLeyve, Sefer HaChinuch, Mitzvah 84.
[7] Rav Aharon HaLeyve, Sefer HaChinuch, Mitzvah 330.