Order Of The Parsha, What Makes A Ger A Ger

Chapter 24 which starts וְאֶל⁠־מֹשֶׁ֨ה אָמַ֜ר עֲלֵ֣ה אֶל⁠־י״י֗ according to Rashi took place before the events of Matan Torah in Yisro.  Rashi says פרשה זו קודם עשרת הדברות. ⁠בארבעה בסיון נאמר לו: עלה.  Then 12 pessukim later when it says וַיֹּ֨אמֶר י״י֜ אֶל⁠־מֹשֶׁ֗ה עֲלֵ֥ה אֵלַ֛י הָהָ֖רָה וֶהְיֵה⁠־שָׁ֑ם וְאֶתְּנָ֨ה לְךָ֜ אֶת⁠־לֻחֹ֣ת הָאֶ֗בֶן וְהַתּוֹרָה֙ וְהַמִּצְוָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר כָּתַ֖בְתִּי לְהוֹרֹתָֽם, Rashi says it took place לאחר מתן תורה.  According to Rashi, the timeframe of the parsha jumps back and forth from before Matan Torah to Matan Torah in Yisro to the end of the parsha going up the mountain and after that the beginnig of Mishpatim.  The Ramban is not happy with this and learns the parshios are in chronological order.  According to the Ramban the aseres hadibbros were given with all of the mitzvot and the next day Klal Yisrael affirmed their acceptance of the mitzvot and Moshe went up the mountain for 40 days.  

According to the Ramban the words of נעשה ונשמע said in possuk 7,  וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ כֹּ֛ל אֲשֶׁר⁠־דִּבֶּ֥ר י״י֖ נַעֲשֶׂ֥ה וְנִשְׁמָֽע are meant to say that Klal Yisrael accepted the Moshe's relaying of the commandments is accurate and we accept all commandments that come from Hashem.  According to the Ramban, we don't have Tosfos's question (Shabbos 88a) of why was there a need to put the mountain over Klal Yisrael's head if they said naaseh vinishma, because the mountain over the head at the aseres hadibros preceded the statement of naaseh vinishma. 

Possuk 3 says וַיָּבֹ֣א מֹשֶׁ֗ה וַיְסַפֵּ֤ר לָעָם֙ אֵ֚ת כׇּל⁠־דִּבְרֵ֣י י״י֔ וְאֵ֖ת כׇּל⁠־הַמִּשְׁפָּטִ֑ים וַיַּ֨עַן כׇּל⁠־הָעָ֜ם ק֤וֹל אֶחָד֙ וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ כׇּל⁠־הַדְּבָרִ֛ים אֲשֶׁר⁠־דִּבֶּ֥ר י״י֖ נַעֲשֶֽׂה.  What was accepted here and why did they not say ונשמע?  Rashi says את כל דברי י״י – מצות פרישה והגבלה. ואת כל המשפטים – שבע מצות שנצטוו בני נח, ושבת, וכיבוד אב ואם,⁠ ופרה אדומה, ודינין, שנתנו לו במרה (This is slightly different from what Rashi says in Beshalach (15:25) that in Marah they were given שַׁבָּת וּפָרָה אֲדֻמָּה וְדִינִין and he omits כיבוד אב ואם, why does he switch?  See Toras Menachem Vaeschanan 5628.)  According to Rashi it would seem the נעשה said here is that Klal Yisrael accepted these commandments given to them while 4 pessukim later the נעשה ונשמע is past of the event of the bris and is the prelude to the acceptance of the commandments of Hashem.  However, according to the Ramban, why does the terminology change?  In the Ramban's commentary he explains the possuk in the same vein as the possuk of נעשה ונשמע but doesn't seem to fully address why does the possuk change terminology?  The Kli Yakar suggests they first accepted all the mitzvot that they heard.  When the people saw the splitting of the blood they took it as a simple that only half the mitzvot have been said and their will will be more mitzvot given and they said we accept those upon ourselves as well.   

Possuk 4 says וַיִּכְתֹּ֣ב מֹשֶׁ֗ה אֵ֚ת כׇּל⁠־דִּבְרֵ֣י י״י֔.  The Eben Ezra says אחר שספר להם כל דברי השם המצות והמשפטים כתבם,⁠ וזהו: ספר הברית.  This is the approach of the Ramban that this happened after the giving of all the mitzvot from Yisro and onward.  The point of the writing was to record the mitzvot that were given. Rashi however, says וַיִּכְתֹּב משֶׁה.  מִבְּרֵאשִׁית וְעַד מַתַּן תּוֹרָה, וְכָתַב מִצְווֹת שֶׁנִּצְטַוּוּ בְמָרָה.  Why does Rashi say that Moshe wrote from בראשית until their resent moment, why not learn that Moshe wrote the laws and description Hashem gave in the lead up to Sinai?  And why does Rashi use the word וכתב in the middle, just say מִבְּרֵאשִׁית וְעַד מַתַּן תּוֹרָה, וְמִצְווֹת שֶׁנִּצְטַוּוּ בְמָרָה?  Rashi can't learn like the Ramban for he holds that this parsha is before the giving of the mitzvot.  According to Rashi this is in the parsha of the bris.  The point of the writing is to give strength to the bris between Hashem and Klal Yisrael.  That is why Rashi understands that the entirety of the Torah is written for it gives the picture of the entirety of history being for the sake of Klal Yisrael.  Rashi splits two different acts of כתיבה since the parshios of the stories of the Torah are a storyline and would be written as the way it is in the Torah but the mitzvot of Marah could not be written in the same form as a written parsha of Torah because the details expressed in the Torah were not given yet.  That is why Rashi says מִבְּרֵאשִׁית וְעַד מַתַּן תּוֹרָה was written as Torah כָתַב מִצְווֹת שֶׁנִּצְטַוּוּ בְמָרָה, and he wrote the מצות, it was a writing of  laws given at Marah but not as parshios of the Torah (Likutay Sichos volume 21.)   

What exactly is entailed for kabbalas hamitzvot and if it is not present if the gerus is valid or not has been debated over the past few centuries, see a summary of the shitos, in hakirah and toraland.

The opinion of the Ramban (Yevamot 45b) is that kabblas mitzvot is an integral role of the gerus process that needs the Beis Din to be present at the time of the ger's acceptance of the mitzvot and without it the gerus is invalid.  The Rambam in his presentation of the steps necessary for gerus (Issuray Beah 13:4) says וְכֵן לְדוֹרוֹת כְּשֶׁיִּרְצֶה הָעַכּוּ''ם לְהִכָּנֵס לִבְרִית וּלְהִסְתּוֹפֵף תַּחַת כַּנְפֵי הַשְּׁכִינָה וִיקַבֵּל עָלָיו עֹל תּוֹרָה צָרִיךְ מִילָה וּטְבִילָה וְהַרְצָאַת קָרְבָּן., he does not mention kabbalas mitzvot.  There is a debate in the Achronim as to if the Rambam holds that קבלת מצות is מעכב as noted in the articles above, but it would appear he does not hold it is part of the gerus process.  

Rav Yehuda Amital suggests that this debate has its roots in the gerus process which occurred at Matan Torah.  The Ramban at the end of Emor (24:10) seems to hold that even pre Matan Torah there was a concept of having laws and the status of a Jew.  So what was the gerus process that was completed during the bris in this week's parsha (see Krisos 9a)?  What was added was the obligation of mitvot.  That is why the Ramban holds there must have been mitzvot given before the event of the bris because the acceptance of mitzvot is the entire essence of the gerus.  There had to be mitzvot that were accepted!  On the other hand, if we assume not like the Ramban, as he himself notes, the French Rabbi's disagreed with him, then the gerus of Matan Torah was not a mere acceptance of the Torah, but establishing a שם ישראל, a Jewish nation and than doesn't require a kabblas mitzvot.  Instead the mitzbot become obligatory because one is a Jew.  So he can learn the order of the parshios in the way Rashi understands which is the simple read of the Gemarah as noted by the Netziv here.  In other words, according to the Ramban an act of gerus, becoming Jewish is accepting mitzvot as then one is joined to the Jewish nation.  According to the Rambam, one accepts to be a Jew and therefore, one is obligated to keep the mitzvot.  

It does behoove an explanation as to why according to Rasih the parshios are out of order.  Furthermore, why does Rashi change his terminology, in possuk 1 he says, פרשה זו קודם עשרת הדברות and in possuk 12 he says לאחר מתן תורה, why change from עשרת הדברות to מתן תורה?  The Rebbe explains (Likutay Sichos volume 26) that there are two things that happened at Matan Torah.  There is a  giving of laws that must be accepted and then there is the event of the covenant between Klal Yisrael and Hashem.  The parsha of Yisro lists the mitzvot as commandments and hence other mitzvot follow.  Only following that does the Torah focus on the bris of Sinai.  This is alluded to by the change in Rashi's terminology.  The parsha of the bris is said before the עשרת הדברות, before the giving of mitzvot, of that aspect of Matan Torah .  It is the commandments that precede this parsha.  After the bris Rashi refers to the event with its total name, which is מתן תורה.     

Between A Gentile And a Jew

There is sometimes a concept in halacha of two opposite categories but sometimes something can fall in the middle of the two categories but be neither here nor there.  As an example, the Gemarah says (Sanhedrin 58b) that an eved kinani is out of the category of a gentile but has not entered the category of a yisrael.  I happened recently to be learning a few examples of this principle and was wondering about trying to find more examples but apparently a list has already been complied by Rav Moshe Adler.  This idea may be employed in the world of hashkafa as well.  In the book by Aviezer Revitsky, "Messianism. Zionism, and Jewish Religious Radicalism," he points out that both Kookian Zionism and Satmer anti-Zionism both stem from the idea that a Jewish state is only applicable outside of the boundaries of golus and hence it must have to do with the geulah.  From there they take opposite approaches either to reject the concept of Israel being a Jewish stare before the Mashiach comes or to view it as the beginning of the geulah process. The author suggests it may be a middle ground, it is not the normal state of golus to have a Jewish state but it is not the process of geulah yet.  

One of the examples of the middle category is how the Radvaz understands the level of a ger who has done a bris milah but not yet gone through the tevilah in a mikvah.  He says in this case as well, the "ger" is no longer a gentile but is not yet a Jew and therefore he has dinim sometimes like a goy and sometimes like a Jew.  The Radvaz says that he will not make wine יין נסך.  It is hard to know when it comes to the status of something in the middle for which laws it figures in category 1 or category 2. 

Rav Yosef Engel suggests (חוסן יוסף #69, Gilyonay Hashas Yevamot 47) that the two parts of the act of gerus, milah and tevilah, reflect these two levels.  The milah is done to remove the status of a gentile and the tevilah is done in order to give the status of a yisrael.  This line of reasoning would fit very well with the Radvaz.  The prospective ger that has done milah is no longer a gentile but has not done tevilah yet in order to enter kedushas yisrael.  It is interesting that the Chelkas Yoav (volume 2 #8) assumes diametrically the opposite.  He says that if only milah is done the person still has the full status of a gentile.  However, if tevialah is done before milah, then the person does have somewhat the status of a Jew and in fact is obligated in mitzvot.  See more about this topic here.  

The Gur Aryeh Vayigash (46:10) asks why Chazal say that Klal Yisrael were prohibited to marry their relatives after Matan Torah, we should say גר שנתגייר כקטן שנולד דמי?  He answers that כקטן שנולד דמי is said only for a ger that comes voluntarily not for Klal Yisrael that the mountain was placed over their head.  He clearly says the rule of כקטן שנולד דמי does not apply to the gerus of Matan Torah.  However, the Meshech Chachma (Vaeschanan 5:27) says the idea of  כקטן שנולד דמי is derived from the gerus of Matan Torah itself from the fact that Bnei Yisrael were not told that they were prohibited to wives who may have been prohibited relatives. (For a collection of the sources to the idea of כקטן שנולד דמי, see Rav Asher Weiss.)  I subsequently found numerous sources that point out this contradiction, see Rav Yoel Amital and Rav Meyer Yisrael.  

Rav Yosef Engel (Beis Haotzer klal 1 #8 questions if the Avos had the status of Yisrael already before Matan Torah how was there gerus at Matan Torah?  In light of the previous discussion maybe there is a middle ground.  Before Matan Torah there was a concept of a separate Jewish nation that in it of itself had a concept of gerus to join as Chazal employ the terminology of gerus even for the people Avraham was teaching.  The Jewsih nation was not in the category of a mere ben noach.  On the other hand, there was no formal kedushas Yisrael and that is established only with the gerus at Sinai (see similar idea in the גרנ"ט כתובות סימן כח ויבות בימן יא.) וצ"ע.     

Rosh Chodesh, Adar, Mishpatim

This week is the parsha of Mishpatim, Rosh Cohdesh Adar 1.  What is the common denominator of these various occurrences?   

The parsha of Mattan Torah is split between Yisro and Mishpatim.  In the parsha of Yisro, the giving of the Torah with the great event that is maamad Har Sinai is recounted.  This is the giving from the side of Hashem.  The parsha of Mishpatim describes the kabbalah of Klal Yisrael, the naaaseh veneshma.  The giving of the Torah is kedusha breaking into the barriers of the world. The receiving of the Torah is accepting, bringing the Torah into the boundaries of the world.  

The holiday of Rosh Chodesh is a day in which the holiday aspect is not so apparent.  For many people it is just a longer Shacharit, but the day is the same like any other.  The kedusha of the day is not apparent.  Why is this so?  Since the holiday of Rosh Chodesh corresponds to the renewal of the moon.  It is a reminder that even when things seem to be going downhill, when the light is diminishing, there is a renewal of the light.  The holiday reminds us that even when the dark days of the golus seem so bleak, Klal Yisrael will not be lost.  The Rosh Chodesh holiday reminds us that even during the chol, when the kedusha is not readily seen, still we are not forgotten.  The holiday aspect only will become recognized in the future.  The possuk at the end of the haftorah of Shabbas Rosh Chodesh is וְהָיָ֗ה מִֽדֵּי⁠־חֹ֙דֶשׁ֙ בְּחׇדְשׁ֔וֹ וּמִדֵּ֥י שַׁבָּ֖ת בְּשַׁבַּתּ֑וֹ יָב֧וֹא כׇל⁠־בָּשָׂ֛ר לְהִשְׁתַּחֲוֺ֥ת לְפָנַ֖י אָמַ֥ר י״יֽ.  The Yalkut says that in the future every Rosh Chodesh will become a time of aliyah l'regal.  The holiday aspect of Rosh Chodesh will be fully recognized.   

The addition of a 13th month is to keep the solar year and lunar year aligned.  This is a  hint, a prelude, to the time of when והיה אור הלבנה כאור החמה (Yeshayua 30:26,) when the moon will shine like the sun.  The addition of a Rosh Chodesh Adar specific, beyond every Rosh Chodesh, is a time where the light of the future shines a small ray on us in the present.  There is a prevalent custom to add in the beracha of Rosh Chodesh where there is a 13th month the words ולכפרת פשע.  The additional month is a כפרה for the diminished light of the moon, which is the source of the darkness in the world (see Toras Menachem 5711 Mishpatim.)  Hence, Rosh Chodesh Adar is a super Rosh Chodesh of sorts.  It is a time of celebration of the holiday, above nature, being absorbed into nature just as Mishpatim is the parsha of bringing the Torah down into the laws and details of everyday life.

The Inner Message

Why does the parsha open with the mitzvah of eved ivri?  Why does it say נעשה ונשמע only in Mishpatim, not in Yisro? Rashi says ומה ראה אזן להרצע מכל שאר אברים שבגוף, אמר רבי יוחנן בן זכאי (קדושין כב, ב) אזן זאת ששמעה על הר סיני לא תגנוב, והלך וגנב, תרצע.  The mefarshim ask that the lav is about kidnapping someone else, not stealing?  And why the emphasis specifically on the sense of hearing?

Rabbenu Yona says in Sharey Teshuva (2:12) עוד אמר שלמה המלך עליו השלום (משלי ט״ו:ל׳-ל״א) מאור עינים ישמח לב שמועה טובה תדשן עצם. אזן שומעת תוכחת חיים בקרב חכמים תלין. ויש לכל חכם לב לדעת כי לא יתכן שחבר שלמה המלך עליו השלום דברים בטלים כאלה חנם [בתוך] דברי המוסר ויראת ה'. כשכבר העיד עליו הכתוב (מלכים א ד') ויחכם מכל האדם. אכן זה פשר הדבר. מאור עינים ישמח לב. העין אבר נכבד מאד כי יראו בו את המאורות המשמחים את הלב. ונכבד ממנו האוזן כי ישמעו בו שמועה טובה המדשנת את העצם שאין בו ההרגשה ולא ידושן במאור עינים בלתי בתענוג יתר. וכן אמרו ז"ל כי האזן נכבד משאר האיברים. שאם סימא את עינו נותן לו דמי עינו. חרשו נותן לו דמי כולו.  Rabbenu Yonah is telling us that the sense of hearing permeates throughout the person.  It is מדשן עצם.  How does listening have such an effect?  Listening provides context and a tone to the information that is being conveyed.  The full experience is only conveyed through a message totally absorbed by the individual and that is מדשן עצם (cited here by Rav Eliyahu Baruch and elaborated on by Rav Walkin.)  

When the commandment not to steal was given, true, the letter of the law forbade kidnapping.  The ear has to hear, to listen to the message behind the message.  The spirit of the law, the desire and true meaning of the law is not to take steal at all.  That is why it is the ear that bears the brunt of the punishment because it failed to listen to the inner meaning of the commandment which is to respect the property of others in all forms. 

 נעשה ונשמע can only be said when one's hearing permeates one's entire being.  When one's hearing leads to fulfillment automatically.  In Yisro, Klal Yisrael are the madregah of נעשה, they would do the commandments but it wouldn't necessarily transform themselves.  The parsha of Mishpatim transformed the beings of Klal Yisrael. המשפטים אשר תשים לפניהם, it entered into the פנימיות.  Therefore,  Klal Yisrael are transformed to say נעשה ונשמע.  It was a hearing of מדשן עצם, one that transformed their very essence. 

Free Yourself

Why is the opening mitzvah that of evid ivri?  Furthermore, the Yerushalmi Rosh Hashana says א"ר שמואל בר רב יצחק (שמות ו) "וידבר ה' אל משה ואל אהרן ויצום אל בני ישראל" על מה ציום? על פרשת שילוח עבדים.  The simple read of the Yerushalmi indicates the parsha of freeing a slave was said already in Mitzraim.  Why command slaves about freeing slaves?  And why does that commandment have to be given first? 

Rav Tzvi Yehuda Kook says לפני כל סידור מהלכי החיים בחברה, הדבר הראשון הוא הטיפול בענין העבדות. קודם כל יש להיות אדם, אדם שלם ונורמלי, ולא עבד משועבד לדבר חיצוני.  The reason the Torah opens with this mitzvah is because in order to keep the mitzvot one must remove one's addictions, desires and impulses.  The freeing of an evid after six years is a message that one must release themselves from all of the 6 bad middot that control a person in order to be able to keep the mitzvot.  Before physically exiting Egypt, Hashem was commanding Bnei Yisrael to free themselves.  Before Pharaoh released them, they had to be able to willing to free the slavery that the self-imposed bondages that come allowing with being a nation born into slavery in Egypt.  Only then would Pharoah letting them go make an actual change in their lives.  

Removing Hatred

 כִּֽי־תִרְאֶ֞ה חֲמ֣וֹר שֹׂנַאֲךָ֗ רֹבֵץ֙ תַּ֣חַת מַשָּׂא֔וֹ וְחָדַלְתָּ֖ מֵעֲזֹ֣ב ל֑וֹ עָזֹ֥ב תַּעֲזֹ֖ב עִמּֽוֹ

Rashi says עזב תעזוב עמו – עזיבה זו לשון עזרה.  The Targum however translated עזב as normally understood, to leave, תִּשְׁבּוֹק מָא דִּבְלִבָּךְ עֲלוֹהִי.  One has to leave aside their hatred and help out the other person.  In other words, helping out with the donkey is a means of the person eradicating hatred from his heart.  Rav Moshe David Valli adds the double terminology teaches us that if one tries to eradicate hatred then Hashem will also remove one's wrongdoings from before Him.  In addition, he adds why does the possuk construct the commandment as a question and answer of וְחָדַלְתָּ֖ מֵעֲזֹ֣ב ל֑וֹ עָזֹ֥ב תַּעֲזֹ֖ב to teach us that even if one is thinking of leaving if one can't totally put aside one's feelings of hatred, still עזב תעזב help the other person out and it will be considered as if one removed one's hatred. 

Two Steps To Freedom

Rashi in Mishpatim (21:6) explains why an eved ivri that wishes to remain after 6 years gets his ear pierced by the doorway, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הָיָה דּוֹרֵשׁ מִקְרָא זֶה כְּמִין חֹמֶר: מַה נִּשְׁתַּנּוּ דֶּלֶת וּמְזוּזָה מִכָּל כֵּלִים שֶׁבַּבַּיִת? אָמַר הַקָּבָּ"ה דֶּלֶת וּמְזוּזָה שֶׁהָיוּ עֵדִים בְּמִצְרַיִם כְּשֶׁפָּסַחְתִּי עַל הַמַּשְׁקוֹף וְעַל שְׁתֵּי הַמְּזוּזוֹת וְאָמַרְתִּי כִּי לִי בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עֲבָדִים – עֲבָדַי הֵם וְלֹא עֲבָדִים לַעֲבָדִים – וְהָלַךְ זֶה וְקָנָה אָדוֹן לְעַצְמוֹ, יֵרָצַע בִּפְנֵיהֶם. The Chizkuni asks this was not said when Hashem skipped over the doorways of Klal Yisrael, this passuk is only said later on in parshas Behar? 

The pessukim in Yirmiyahu (34:13-14) say אָנֹכִ֗י כָּרַ֤תִּֽי בְרִית֙ אֶת־אֲב֣וֹתֵיכֶ֔ם בְּי֨וֹם הוֹצִאִ֤י אוֹתָם֙ מֵאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֔יִם מִבֵּ֥ית עֲבָדִ֖ים לֵאמֹֽר׃מִקֵּ֣ץ שֶׁ֣בַע שָׁנִ֡ים תְּֽשַׁלְּח֡וּ אִישׁ֩ אֶת־אָחִ֨יו הָעִבְרִ֜י אֲשֶֽׁר־יִמָּכֵ֣ר לְךָ֗ וַעֲבָֽדְךָ֙ שֵׁ֣שׁ שָׁנִ֔ים וְשִׁלַּחְתּ֥וֹ חׇפְשִׁ֖י מֵֽעִמָּ֑ךְ וְלֹֽא־שָׁמְע֤וּ אֲבֽוֹתֵיכֶם֙ אֵלַ֔י וְלֹ֥א הִטּ֖וּ אֶת־אׇזְנָֽם׃. We see that there is a bris forged at the time of leaving Egypt that one should send any slave that one own's to be freed in the year of shmittah. When did this bris happen? 

We see from other brisot that happened in the Torah such as bris milah and the bris at Har Sinai that it takes place with blood. The bris at yitzias mitzraim therefore, was the blood placed on the doorway. It was at this time that Hashem commanded not to keep an eved ivri forever because כי לי בני ישראל עבדים. It was at this time, at the time when G-d passed over the houses that a bris was made כי לי בני ישראל עבדים. (Based upon this article.) Why was this bris made then and what was its nature?

In the Haggadah we say a beracha at the end of Maggid על גאולתנו ועל פדיון נפשנו. What is the difference between גאולה and פדות? Rav Chayim explains that גאולה means a mere transfer of possession but פדות means an intrinsic change in the object. He says that in Egypt we were worked by the Egyptians but we also had the status of slaves. Geulah means that the bondage of slavery was broken, the servitude was negated. Yet that doesn't remove the status of slaves from Klal Yisrael. That is pedus. That is Hashem saying עבדי הם. That is what we say על גאולתנו for the negation of the actual work על פדיון נפשנו that our souls were saved, we were transferred from slaves of Pharaoh to servants of Hashem.

 

This idea of there being two types of freedom from the hands of the Egyptians in already found in the Gra. The Gra (Aderes Eliyahu Reah (13:6)) המוציא אתכם מארץ מצדים והפדך מבית עבדים. שב' גאולות היה ביציאת מצרים אחד בלילה והוא אתחלתא דגאולה שאמר משה לפרעה בלילה אם תרצה לפטור מיד מן המכות אמור להם בני חורין אתם. ולמחרת בעצם היום יצאו ממצרים ביד רמה ועל גאולת לילה היה פדיון של ישראל ממכת בכורו' כמ״ש כל בכוריהם הרגת ובכורך גאלת. וגאולה של יום הוא ביד רמה בחזקה לכך אמר המוציא אתכם ממצרים והוא ביום וזהו המוציא בעל כרחם. והפדך. הוא גאולת לילה שנתנו פדיון. וכן נאמר בישעיה הקצור קצרה ידי מפדות ואם אין בי כח להציל. ידי מפדות. הוא גאולה שע״י פדיון כמו במרדכי שניתן המן תחתיו. ובמצרים ניתנו בכוריהם תחת בכורי ישראל. לכך אמר לשון פדיון. ואם אין בו כח. הוא גאולה בלי פדיון. והוא ביד חזקה. It is clear from the Gra that the פדות took place at night, at the time of makkot bechorot. The גאולה took place during the day when Klal Yisrael actually walked out of Egypt. (The Gra is explaining the word pedus different than Rav Chayim, he is saying pedus means an exchange as opposed to geulah which means total redemption.) However, we see from the Gra that pedus is associated with the night and geulah with the day. In line with Rav Chayim that means that at night Klal Yisrael was taken out form the status of slaves to the Egyptians and entered into a bris with Hashem. The actual leaving of Egypt, the actual servitude itself only was entirely finished in the day. 

Rashi Yishayahu (43:3) supports the idea of the Gra that the pidyon took place at night. He says נתתי כפרך מצרים. והם היו לך לפדיון שבכוריהם מתו ואתה בני בכורי נצלת והייתם חייבים כליה כמו שנאמר (ביחזקאל כ׳:ח׳) ואומר לשפוך חמתי עליהם בארץ מצרים. It is during the night that the transfer from being slaves of Egypt to avadim of Hashem takes place. This is marked by the blood placed upon the doorpost which signified the bris of עבדי הם. 

That is why Klal Yisrael are given the mitzvot of milah and pesach. The Maharal explains that milah is the branding of Klal Yisrael as avadim to Hashem and pesach is the expression of that avdut by serving Hashem (see Gur Aryeh 12:6.) It was on the night of maakat bechorot that Klal Yisrael transferred from slaves of Egypt to servants of Hashem. (Mekoros from Yarech L'Moadim Pesach.)

 

It is also noteworthy that there were two steps to freedom. Everything could have taken place at night with Pharoah sending everyone out before further damage was done. However, that was not the case. Although בבהילו יצאנו ממצרים there was an order to how Klal Yisrael left. Hashem gave instructions exactly how the Pesach must be eaten with all of its laws and only the next day Klal Yisrael left during the daytime as is more apropos to travel. Everything has to be conducted כסדר. As Rav Yeruchem notes many times for anything to be successful there must be a סדר to it.

Becoming Part Of You

Why does the parsha open אשר תשים לפניהם, speaking in plural terminology and then immediately switch to כי תקנה, speaking to the individual?  why do the mishpatim interrupt between the two halves of the mattan Torah tale in Yisro and the end of Mishpatim? 

Why does it say ואלה המשפטים if the Torah goes on to list off mitzvot that are chukim as well?  The title mishpat is not referring only to the mishpatim themselves but is a paradigm as to how how to view the mitzvot.  A mishpat it that which can be grabbed by the human mind, it can  become absorbed entirely into the individual.  The opening line of the parsha, ואלה המשפטים אשר תשים לפניהם, introduces the goal, the mission statement.  The Torah, the mitzvot should become entirely engrained and part of the makeup of an individual.  לפניהם, into the pnemius of the person.  That is the general message given over to the body of Klal Yisroel.   

Why does the Torah open the many dinim of the parsha with that of slaves? The parsha of slaves according to Chassidut represents the different levels in the service of Hashem.  The Torah starts off with the parsha of eved ivri.  This is one who at times struggles to do his service but does it faithfully and even at most points with a desire.  This is the typical starting point of a Jew.  S/he is born with the desire to do Hashem's will but it is a struggle to adhere to the pressures beckoning form the outside world sometimes one will have to force themselves.  From there sometimes one loses the struggle sometimes and may lower to be an eved kenani who's sole desire is to be be free to do whatever he wants but forces himself to do the work or one may elevate themselves to that of the amah who's sole desire is to serve her master and may even become one with her master.  This parsha is said to the individual according to their level of avodah there will be a slow order of progression.  Every individual will have their own path.  

The parsha of Mattan Torah of Yisro is Hashem coming to meet mortal man on Earth.  The pasrsha of Mishpatim is man meeting Hashem.  It is the naaseh v'nishma of Klal Yisroel.  This is the message of mishpatim.  The person takes the mitzvot and Torah and absorbs it into themselves.  That is why  Mishpatim is the preface to the second half of Mattan Torah.  

Kofer Obligation

ואם שור נגח הוא מתמל שלשם והועד בבעליו ולא ישמרנו והמית איש או אשה השור יסקל וגם בעליו יומת אם כפר יושת עליו ונתן פדין נפשו.  Rashi explains that the יומת is מיתה בידי שמים (which is then atoned for by paying kofer.)  Rashi in Ketubot (37b) says the same thing as well.  However, Rashi Bava Kammah (2b) says that יומת means to pay money as it does not literally mean the owner gets killed.  Why does Rashi there deviate from his interpretation in the other places? 

Why does the Torah use the terminology of אם כופר if it is an obligation?  Rashi says that this one example (of a few) where the word אם means an obligation.  The Ramban says that this tells us something about the nature of kofer.  בעבור היות הכופר כפרה כענין הקרבנות, ואם הוא אינו חפץ בה אין מכריחין אותו לבא לבית דין לחייבו בכך, ואפילו אם חייבוהו אין ממשכנין אותו, בעבור זה אמר: אם.  It is not an obligation that will be forced upon the offender, if he wishes the atonement he will pay, if not, he will not be forced.  The Ramban brings support from the Gemorah Bava Kammah (4oa) that says Beis Din will not seize the estate to pay kofer.   We see that it is not a monetary obligation on the individual but rather an atonement which is upon him to decide if he wants or not.  This seems to be in line with what the Ramban writes in Maakot (2b) that adim zommimin on the obligation of kofer are not obligated in any punishment because they are not making any money obligation on the accused party.  They are merely coming to inform the accused that he should pay kofer but are not in actuality levying any obligation up on him.  The Achronim ask that if we are ממשכנין for kofer is a question of the Gemorah and is not resolved so how can the Ramban explain the possuk according to one opinion?

Walk Through The Door

The Kli Yakar says one of the messages of the eved evri getting his ear pierced against the doorway is that the doorway is open for him to go free but he refuses to walk through it. 

Many individuals are enslaved to the cycle of life that exists in this world and can not escape.  However, there are times when one stands right in front of the door. שער החצר הפנימית הפנה קדים יהיה סגור ששת ימי המעשה וביום השבת יפתח וביום החדש יפתח.  There is the door of Shabbos, the time when ready or not, the Shabbos comes and the door is open for a person to walk through.  Then there is Rosh Chodesh, החדש הזה לכם, it is up to the individual to establish for themselves the door to break through (Sfas Emes.)  There are times in life when the door may be in front of the individual because they have worked to make the door, the Rosh Chodesh door or the Shabbos door, it is standing before one automatically, but one must choose to walk through. 

The parsha of Mishpatim opens with many different laws and then at the end circles back to the story of Mattan Torah.  Why is there an interruption of all these laws between the two parshiot of Mattan Torah? אין לך בן חורין אלא מי שעוסק בתורה.  The Torah transformed a nation of slaves into בן חורין.  In the parsha of Yisro, the focus is on the majesty of the giving of the Torah.  The קולות ברקים ענן וכו, the giving of the Torah from Hashem to us.  The door being given.  Mishpatim is about נעשה ונשמע, the acceptance of Klal Yisroel.  That is why the mishpatim interrupt.  It is to demonstrate that it is not enough to merely have the Torah, but one must make it a part of themselves.  The mishpatim are understandable.  It is something one can wrap their head around.  It is only when a person is willing to delve into understanding the Torah that they can obtain the freedom of the Torah.  

Stuck In Servitude

From Rav Refael Shmulevetz:

ד) ובקידושין כ"ב ב' איתא, רבן יוחנן בן זכאי הי' דורש את המקרא הזה כמין חומר, מה נשתנה אוזן מכל אברים שבגוף, אמר הקב"ה אוזן ששמעה קולי על הר סיני בשעה שאמרתי "כי לי בני ישראל עבדים עבדי הם, ולא עבדים לעבדים", והלך זה וקנה אדון לעצמו, תירצע ע"כ. והנה דברים אלו במוכר עצמו, אבל במכרוהו בי"ד שלא הוא שמכר את עצמו אמאי ירצע, ובפרט למ"ד דרק מכרוהו בי"ד נרצע, אכן כבר הביא רש"י בפי' החומש ריש משפטים את המכילתא, אוזן ששמעה על הר סיני לא תגנוב והלך וגנב תירצע, ואם מוכר עצמו - אוזן ששמעה כי לי בנ"י עבדים וכו' תרצע. ויש להתבונן במכרוהו בי"ד נרצע על שעבר אלא תגנוב, דזה תמוה טובא, דמה מקום מצאו להפרע ממנו על גניבתו בשעה שאומר אהבתי וכו' לא אצא לחפשי, בשעת המכירה הי' לו להרצע, ולא בשעה שמבקש להשאר אצל אדונו, וגם שאם לא יבקש שלא לצאת לחפשי הרי ינצל מן הרציעה, ומה טעם בזה.

ה) ומה שנראה לומר הוא, דמכרוהו בי"ד אין עלינו לרוצעו בשעה שנמכר, שעצם מכירתו זו היא עונשו על גניבתו. אך אם בשעה שעומד הוא לצאת לחפשי אומר אהבתי את אדוני וגו' לא אצא לחפשי, הרי איגלאי מילתא למפרע שלא הרגיש טעם עונש במכירתו, ואדרבה עריבה היא עבדותו עליו ורוצה הוא עוד להמשיך בה ככל שיוכל, לכך קבעה תורה שתרצע אוזנו בתורת עונש על שגנב, כיון שעונש הראשון לא הועיל לו, וכמו שנתבאר. [מה שהזכרנו בכאן עונש, יתכן שאי"ז מדויק, שאין הרציעה וכן המכירה כעונש לו, אלא זה בא להוכיחו שיכיר בחטאו, ועכ"פ דברינו במקומם עומדים].מיהו לדברינו יש לעי' למה החמירה תורה בעבדותו אחר הרציעה שלא יועיל לו גרעון כסף, וישאר עבד לעולמו של יובל, וזה צריך טעם דהרי במכירה ראשונה שאף היא כעונש על גניבתו לא נמכר אלא לשש ויש לו לצאת בגרעון כסף, ולמה הוחמר עונשו כעת.ובאמת שגם בלא דברינו יק' כזאת במוכר עצמו, שכל עונשו הוא על שעבר על מה ששמעה אוזנו כי לי בנ"י עבדים עבדי הם ולא עבדים לעבדים, והלך זה וקנה אדון לעצמו, [ואינו נרצע מיד במוכר עצמו, דאז הרי מפני דוחקו מכר עצמו (ראה קידושין דף כ.) אבל בשעה שהוא עומד לצאת לחפשי, ומשום שאהבתי את אדוני וגו'" אינו רוצה לצאת לחרות, על כך קבעה התורה דינו ברציעה], וא"כ מה טעם החמירה תורה בעבדותו אחר הרציעה שתהא חמורה יותר מעבדותו הקודמת, שתהא נמשכת לעולמה של יובל ולא יוכל לפדות עצמו באמצע הזמן.

ו) אך כשנתבונן בדבר נבין דהיא הנותנת, וכל תועלתה של הרציעה היא במה שלא יוכל עוד להשתחרר ע"י גרעון כסף, והוא ע"פ מה שביאר אאמו"ר זצ"ל בשיחות מוסר מאמר ס"א, את האמור במלכים (א' ב' ח-ט) והנה עמך שמעי בן גרא וכו' והוא קללני קללה נמרצת כו' ואשבע לו בה' לאמור אם אמיתך בחרב, ועתה, אל תנקהו כי איש חכם אתה, וידעת את אשר תעשה לו והורדת את שיבתו בדם שאול ע"כ. ומה עשה החכם מכל אדם, אמר לו לשמעי (שם ל"ו והלאה) בנה לך בית בירושלים וישבת שם וכו' והי' ביום צאתך ועברת את נחל קידרון ידוע תדע כי מות תמות, דמך יהי' בראשך, ויאמר שמעי למלך טוב הדבר, כאשר דבר אדוני המלך כן יעשה עבדך וגו' (ונשבע על כך). [ויהי מקץ שלש שנים ויברחו שני עבדים לשמעי וכו' ויקם שמעי ויחבוש את חמורו וילך גתה וכו', וישמע המלך ויקרא לשמעי ויאמר אליו, הלא השבעתיך בה' וכו' ותאמר אלי טוב הדבר שמעתי, ומדוע לא שמרת את שבועת ה' ואת המצוה אשר ציויתי עליך וכו', ולבסוף המיתו]. וכשנתבונן בפרשה זו יש לתמוה בה טובא, דהנה שלמה צווה ע"י אביו שלא לנקות את שמעי, ומה עשה, אמר לו שלא לצאת מירושלים, מה חכמה יש כאן ומה תבונה בדבר זה, וכי מעט אנשים היו שלא יצאו מירושלים, ושעלי' נאמר יפה נוף משוש כל הארץ וכו', ואיך הבין שלמה שלא יוכל שמעי לעמוד בשבועתו, והרי לאו קטלא קניא הי' שמעי, אלא ראש הסנהדרין, ומה שנראה לעינינו לכאורה אין כאן משום חכמה כל עיקר. אלא באמת צדק שלמה וכמו שאמר הכתוב, ויהי מקץ וכו' ככתוב למעלה, ובאמת מה טעם לא הי' יכול שמעי למנוע עצמו מלעבור על שבועתו.וביאר אאמו"ר זצ"ל בשיחות מוסר שם, דשלמה המלך בחכמתו כי רבה הבין, שאף שמרצונו יכול שמעי לישב בירושלים כל ימיו ולא יצא ממנה, בכל זאת אם יכריח אותו לישב בה, הרי משוש כל הארץ זו תיהפך לכלא, ובעל כרחו יוכרח לפרוץ כלאו ולצאת ממנה, ע"כ דבריו.

ז) וע"פ יסוד זה מוסברת לנו תועלתה של הרציעה, שכלפי מה שאומר אהבתי את אדוני וכו' לא אצא לחפשי, ולומר שאינו מכיר במגרעת העבדות, וערב לו מצבו אף שהוא בשפל המדרגה ("עבדים לעבדים") למדה אותו התורה מוסר ע"י שני דברים: א) מעשה הרציעה באוזנו, להורות לו אוזן ששמעה על הר סיני וכו', ובגניבה כעונש וכמוסר על גניבתו הואיל ולא הרגיש בעונש ובמוסר העבדות שמכרוהו בי"ד, וב') שנעשה עבד נרצע לעולמו של יובל, ולא יוכל לצאת בגרעון כסף, דע"כ יעבוד את אדונו, לא מצאה התורה דרך ללמדו שפלות מצבו שנראה לעניו כמתוק וכערב אלא ע"י שנאכיף עליו את מצבו, וכיון שיהי' מוכרח בעבדותו רק אז ירגיש כמה היא כובלת אותו, ומה הוא מצבו של "עבד לעבדים".אכן כל זה בעבד לעבדים, אבל "בעבדי הם" החיוב מוטל על האדם להשתעבד לקונו ככל האפשר, ואף שיש לו בחירה, החיוב מוטל עליו לבטל את הבחירה ולהיות משועבד לעשות רצון קונו, אע"פ שזה קשה הרבה יותר וכאמור, לפום צערא אגרא.ואאמו"ר שם ביאר דזהו שאמרו חז"ל אינו דומה המצווה ועושה למי שאינו מצווה ועושה, דמי שאינו מצווה, הרי אינו משועבד ופת בסלו, הרי קיום המצות קל לו יותר מאשר מי שמצווה ומרגיש שמוכרח הוא למלא חובו (וכמש"כ התוס').

Loshan Harah

Rav Reuvan Grozovsky on lashon harah from the sefer zikaron Even Tzion.

Don't Copy Me

The Shulchan Aruch Yorah Deah (140:5) brings the law that one is not allowed to make vessels that look like the one's of the mikdash.  The Shach understands if one makes a menorah without גביעים וכפתורים one violates this prohibition only by a menorah of non- gold metal for only then it is כשר as discussed in the last post.  Rebbe Akiva Eger brings the Tevuos Shor holds that even a menorah made of gold without גביעים וכפתורים is prohibited.  Why should it be prohibited if its not kosher for the menoras mikdash?
There are two ways to understand this prohibition of mimicking vessels of the mikdash.  The simple read of the Gemorah in Avodah Zarah (43a-b) is that its the same prohibition as making images of angelic creators which the prohibition at the end of Mishpatim, לֹ֥א תַעֲשׂ֖וּן אִתִּ֑י אֱלֹ֤הֵי כֶ֙סֶף֙ וֵאלֹהֵ֣י זָהָ֔ב לֹ֥א תַעֲשׂ֖וּ לָכֶֽם.  However, the Rambam cites the prohibition in Beis Habechirah (8:10) in the context of מורה מקדש.  From here the Minchas Chinuch (39:1) proves that the Rambam holds its not the aforementioned issur of לֹ֥א תַעֲשׂ֖וּן אִתִּ֑י, rather imitating the kelim of the mikdash is a lack of יראת מקדש.  This is explicit in the Chinuch (254) as well.
Based upon the last post where we established that the menorah of gold without גביעים וכפתורים is kosher for lighting, just not kosher to fulfill the din of making a menorah, says the Masseh Yad we can understand the machlokes baed upon the previous two ways of understanding the issur of mimiking the kelim of the mikdash,.  If its a violation of לֹ֥א תַעֲשׂ֖וּן אִתִּ֑י, that applies here as well for it is kosher for lighting.  However, if its a violation of מורה מקדש is is inapplicable for it is not classified as an object of the mikdash.

Shabbos, Shekalim And Six

The parsha opens up with the parsha of the עבד עבריה that works for six years and goes free in the seventh.  Many holy books connect this to our  life cycle of the six days of work and the seventh day, שבת is the day of spiritual freedom.  This is true on a personal, physiological and spiritual level where everyone's focus on Shabbos is different from that of the week.  However, this is true for the interaction of the world's relationship with G-d as well.  In Torah Or Yisro (69:4) the Alter Rebbe points out that through the beginning of בראשית the name of אלוקים is used.  It is only after the creation of שבת that the name הויה is used.  During the six days of the week the world operates under the צמצום and העלמה of the name אלוקים.  It is only come Shabbos that the "cover comes off" and the world is indirect connection with the name הויה.  The world is "freed" from the bondage of the limitations of the שם of אלוקים.  In fact, our freedom on Shabbos is merely only an outgrowth of the general freedom of the world.  

There are 6 sides in the cube, it is the farthest טבע can extend.  שבת is the middle core, the פנימיות of it, as the Maharal and Sfas Emes explain.  One can becomes ensnared within the confines of this world, s/he can contaminate 6 days of the week but שבת, the core, will remain pure and is the doorway to release an individual from the bondages of the evil inclination.

The Yerushalmi Shekalim (9b) says: זה יתנו כל העובר על הפקודים ר' יהודה ור' נחמיה חד אמר לפי שחטאו במחצית היום יתנו מחצית השקל וחרנה אמר לפי שחטאו בשש שעות ביום יתנו מחצית השקל דעבד שיתא גרמסין [It is half like half of the day, 6 hours for it was at that point that they thought Moshe was late and started making the Egel.  Or since the sin started at 6 hours into the day we give half a שקל which equals 6 גרמסין (a coin that existed in Moshe's time.)]   The Shem M'Shmuel says the emphasis on the six represents that it is our external powers, the effect on the 6 directions that became tainted by the Egel.  However, it was a philosophical error as the Rishonim explain, and at the core we remained pure.  The fix to the darkness that spread on account of the Egel is to use this power of six for the good and that is represented by the giving of the shekalim.

Freed By The Eye And Tooth

The Rambam in mitzvah #235 says: היא שצונו בדין עבד כנעני. והוא שנעבוד בו לעולם ושאין לו חירות אלא בשן ועין והוא הדין לשאר איברים שאינן חוזרין כמו שבא הפירוש המקובל.  The Ramban says לפי דעתי ששתים מצות הן, שנצטוינו שנעבוד בכנעני לעולם ולא נשחרר אותו בחנם, ונצטוינו עוד שאם נפיל את שנו או עינו יהיה בן חורין ומותר בבת ישראל, וכמו שהנישואין והגירושין שתי מצות כן אלו בשוה, ... אבל הענין הזה הוא דין מן הדינין שנצטוינו לשלם לעבד כנעני שחרור גופו בדמי עינו ושנו ומעת עמדו עם בעליו בב"ד ישחררו אותו בתשלומי הנזק ומ"מ מצוה בפני עצמה תמנה בכל הדינין שמנה הרב וכגון מצות הגירושין.  What we see is that the Rambam views the halacha that the slave goes free if his limb is knocked out as a law in how to deal with slaves. It is a law in הלכות עבדים, he doesn't go free except for these scenarios.  The Ramban however views it as a law in הלכות חובל ומזיק, the form of payment for the slave is that he goes free.
One example where this plays out is regarding an eved when there are no דיינים סמוכין.  The Rif brings the whole discussion about which limbs cause the slave to go free in Kiddushin 24-25.  Why, the יציאה of the eved by limbs knocked out is a קנס (as we see in Bava Kama 74,) and we don't have דיינים סמוכין to judge  קנסות?  The Ran brings the Ramban explains the reason is because since its a קנס and one can be תופס, then automatically the eved is considered תפוס in himself and he will be free.  The Kesef Mishna (Avadim 5:17) understands in the the Rambam that the תפיסה of the eved works only because of a Rabbinic enactment.  Why is it only Rabbinic?  because the Rambam holds the יציאה of the eved isn't a payment that he can claim and grab for himself.  It is an obligation on the owner to free him.  Hence, technically the eved has no rights to "grab himself", and it is only Rabbinic that it works.  The Ramban goes לשיטתו that it is a form of payment, hence תפיסה works מעיקר הדין. (Mishnas Yaavetz Yoreh Deah siman 32.)

The Pnei Menachem brings from students of the Besht that the יציאה of the slave via the tooth or eye being knocked out is allegorical for our service of Hashem as well.  The main way to curb one's evil inclination is by watching one's eyes from looking at the wrong things and by watching the tooth that is to eat properly and only speak proper things.

Two Parts To Bikkurim

The possuk (23:19) says רֵאשִׁ֗ית בִּכּוּרֵי֙ אַדְמָ֣תְךָ֔ תָּבִ֕יא בֵּ֖ית י״י֣ אֱלֹהֶ֑יךָ לֹֽא־תְבַשֵּׁ֥ל גְּדִ֖י בַּחֲלֵ֥ב אִמּֽוֹ׃.  Rashi says ראשית בכורי אדמתך – אף השביעית חייבת בביכורים, לכך נאמרה אף כאן. (That is earlier in the parsha it referred to שביעית.)  The Maharal asks בודאי טעות סופר הוא, דאיך שייך דיהיה השביעית חייב בביכורים, שאיך קורא אני כאן ״ועתה הבאתי ראשית פרי האדמה אשר נתת לי״ (דברים כו, י), דהא לא לו נתן, ואיך שייך שחייב בביכורים:  (See also Mizrachi that brings that some take out this from Rashi.) Well assuming we have the Rashi as is, the Or  Hachayim in Ki Savo (26:12) writes the opposite, that שביעית doesn't have an obligation of ביכורים.  The Minchas Chinuch (91:2) wonders how he disagrees with Rashi without any source. 

The Binyan Av volume 5 #60 says its no contradiction.  There are two aspects to the obligation of ביכורים.  In Ki Savo we learn about bikkurim with the obligation of reading the parsha which is about thanking Hashem for all He has given to you.  That obligation is linked specifically to the land.  It is an obligation of the land that requires you to bring bikkurim.  However, at the end of every time the Torah speaks about the holidays, the same possuk crops up, רֵאשִׁ֗ית בִּכּוּרֵי֙ אַדְמָ֣תְךָ֔ תָּבִ֕יא בֵּ֖ית י״י֣ אֱלֹהֶ֑יךָ לֹֽא־תְבַשֵּׁ֥ל גְּדִ֖י בַּחֲלֵ֥ב אִמּֽוֹ.  We understand that bikkurim is linked to Shavuot so its mentioned there, but why is basar bechalav thrown in? The Targum Yonason on the possuk in this week's parsha says לית אתון רשאין לא למבשלא ולא למיכול בשר וחלב מערבין כחדא דלא יתקף רוגזי ואיבשיל עיבוריכון דגנא וקשא תריהון כחדא.  Similarly, in Ki Sesa (the difference in crop destruction is noted by the ביאור יונתן,) לית אתון רשאין למבשלא ולא למיכול בשר וחלב תריהון מערבין כחדא דלא יתקוף רוגזי בכון וארשין פירי אילניכון עם בוסרא בליבלוביהון וטרפיהון כחדא.  For some reason eating  basar bechalav will lead to the crops being destroyed so there won't be any bikkurim.  Here, the focus is on the growth of the crops of the field. Just as the we offer water on Sukkot, wheat on Shavuot and barley on Pesach to ensure beracha in the growth of our crops, so too we offer bikkurim to ensure a beracha in our crops.  This is an obligation on the individual, not on the land.

The Or Hachayim is talking about the obligation of the land, for that שביעית is exempt; there is no owner, there is no reading of the parsha.  However, the secondary obligation to just bring bikkurim as an obligation on the individual, that Rashi says applies by שביעית as well.   

Slave Marriage

The Gemorah in Ketubot (47b) brings an opinion that learns the obligations that a husband has to his wife from the possuk of  שְׁאֵרָ֛הּ כְּסוּתָ֥הּ וְעֹנָתָ֖הּ לֹ֥א יִגְרָֽע.  The Pnei Yehoshua and Minchas Chinich (46:9) ask that the these obligations are only after נישאוין but יעוד only accomplishes אירוסין?
The Rambam Melachim (4:4) says אֲבָל הַהֶדְיוֹט אָסוּר בְּפִילֶגֶשׁ אֶלָּא בְּאָמָה הָעִבְרִיָּה בִּלְבַד אַחַר יִעוּד.  [The Gra Even Haezer siman 26 uses this Rambam to answer the questions of Ramban on Rambam that prohibits a פילגש to a non-king from many stories in Tanach that we find that people had פילגשים?  Answers the Gra that the Rambam understood all those cases are talking about the scenario of אמה עבריה.]  Why does the Rambam view יעוד as a פילגש?  The marriage of יעוד is not your classic run-of-the-mill קידושין.  It is an another form of the service of the אמה עבריה.  Through יעוד the owner or his son obtain the rights to exercise their ownership over the אישות of the אמה as well. [Just as a king has rights to take a פילגש for he has rights to take whatever he wants; he can exercise marshal law to seize even the אישות rights of a woman.  Similarly, the owner of the maidservant has rights even to her אישות.  See ראש לראובני סי' כג.]  That is why even there are the marital obligations immediately for he has complete ownership over her אישות via his purchase of her as a maidservant.  However, such a similar level of ownership in a regular marriage is only after נישאוין and it is only then when the marital obligations begin.  (See Maseas Moshe Kiddushim #42 cf.  Rav Aharon Kotler in Mishnas Aharon Kiddushin #1 and אוסף חידושי תורה #20 that explains a little differently.) 

Answers

Earlier in the week I posted questions on Rashi.  In regard to the first question I found an answer in Likutaty Sichos volume 6.  The Rebbe explains that in third example of דבר הכתוב בהווה is different than the other places for in the example of טריפה בשדה the word בשדה is extra.  It is an additional חידוש to say the Torah will write an extra word to enhance the case and that Rashi can't find a source for in our parsha, and must look elsewhere.
The answer to question 2 can be found in Likutay Sichos volume 11.  He explains that there are two kinds of אם.  There is the אם used when the Torah is telling us when this event happens and that there are plenty of and isn't the rule of Rebbe Yishmoel.  Rebbe Yishmoel's rule is addressing when the Torah is describing the action of a person.  That's when he says its always a  רשות except for three places.  Therefore, אם יהיה היובל doesn't make the list.  However, Rashi in Vayikra is addressing a different issue than the other two places where אם means an obligation.  Rashi wants to give an example of where we may find אם meaning when and for that he cites a proof from יובל.  Why Rashi cites tthe name Rebbe Yishmoel is a little more complicated, you can see for yourself here.

Thoughts On Rashi

Rashi in three places (that I remember) in the parsha refers to the idea that the possuk talks about a normal scenario.  See the Rashi 21:28 why the possuk talks about an ox goring.  Again in 22:17 to explain why the Torah uses the feminine term to refer to a sorcerer.  The hat trick is in 22:30 why the Torah refers to the terafeh being outside, in the field.  אף בבית כן, אלא שדיבר הכתוב בהווה, מקום שדרך בהמות ליטרף, וכן (דברים כב כז) כי בשדה מצאה, וכן (שם כג יא) אשר לא יהיה טהור מקרה לילה, הוא הדין מקרה יום, אלא שדיבר הכתוב בהווה. ואונקלוס תרגם ובשר תליש מן חיוא חיא, בשר שנתלש על ידי טרפת זאב או ארי, מן חיה כשרה או מבהמה כשרה בחייה  However, what I don't understand is why Rashi here brings additional support to this idea from other places, why didn't he bring the supports the first time and why does he bring support from other places if the same principle was already stated in this parsha?  

Question 2: Rashi at the end of last week's parsha cites Rebbe Yishmoel that there are 3 times the word אם means an obligation.  רבי ישמעאל אומר כל אם ואם שבתורה רשות, חוץ משלשה ואם מזבח אבנים תעשה לי, הרי אם זה משמש בלשון כאשר, כאשר תעשה לי מזבח אבנים לא תבנה אתהן גזית שהרי חובה עליך לבנות מזבח אבנים, שנאמר (דברים כז ו) אבנים שלמות תבנה, וכן (שמות כב כד) אם כסף תלוה, חובה הוא, שנאמר (דברים טו ח) והעבט תעביטנו. ואף זה משמש בלשון כאשר וכן (ויקרא ב יד) ואם תקריב מנחת בכורים זו מנחת העומר, שהיא חובה, ועל כרחך אין אם הללו תלוין, אלא ודאין, ובלשון כאשר הם משמשים.  The second place is in our parsha and Rashi on 22:24 on אם כסף תלוה cites the same explanation.  The question arises in regard to the third place, ואם תקריב בכורים.  We would except Rashi to give the same explanation, however there (Vayikra 2:14) he says the following: הרי אם משמש בלשון כי, שהרי אין זה רשות, שהרי במנחת העומר הכתוב מדבר, שהיא חובה, וכן (במדבר לו ד) ואם יהיה היובל וגו'.  Why does he omit Rebbe Yishmoel's name (really we need to understand in the other two places why he cites the name,) and why is there a fourth verse about yoval introduced?  And if there is a fourth verse, doesn't that contradict Rebbe Yishmoel that says there are only three places that אם is an obligation? 

Benifit From Milk And Meat

The Chinuch says that there is no punishment of lashes for receiving benefit from basar b’chalav because it can be done without an action.  However, the Rambam according to maggid mishne (שכירות יג:ב  ) holds the opposite; if it can be violated through an action, even if it’s done without an action there is lashes.  So he should hold there is lashes however, he says in מאכ"א ח:טז that there is no punishment of lashes.  Why not?  The Mishne L’melech explains based upon the principle of the Rambam shoresh #2 that there is no punishment for that which is learnt out from a scriptural reference.

The Rambam in his explanation of כריתות ג:ד  says what he calls a נקודה הפלאה that the איסור הנאה isn’t considered a איסור מוסיף  because the issur hanah isn’t separate from the איסור אכילה.  The same approach is cited by Ramban Chullin 113b in the name of יש מפרשים.  It sounds like from this Rambam that the prohibition on benefit is an outgrowth of the prohibition of eating.  However, in Sefer Hamitzvot the Rambam says the prohibition of eating is part of the issur hanah?  Rav Elchanan (Kovetz Ha’oros #30) says that what the Rambam says in Sefer Hamitzvot is right.  His intent in the perush hamishna is just to say that the two issurim go hand in hand, you can’t separate איסור אכילה fromאיסור הנאה.  In light of this Rambam, the aforementioned Rambam is very difficult to understand.  How can there be lashes for eating but not for hanah, if the issur on eating is merely a form of the issur hanah in which there is no punishment of lashes?