Transcript
Okay, good morning.All right, we have the privilege this morning of studying פרשת בהר Parshas Behar together. Very short parsha, not in combination with בחקתי Bechukosai, which doesn't happen often. So as usual, we'll give a little overview of the parsha, and then we'll get into the psukim that I want to delve into together on a text analysis basis. Good, there's plenty of seats at the table if you want to join. If you want to if you want to hide back there, you're welcome to also, but either way, I promise I won't call on you.The the parsha begins with the with the story of Shmita. The majority of the parsha deals with the issue of Shmita, the sabbatical year, and of Yovel. And there's a great opening Rashi that the parsha begins, וידבר ה' אל משה בהר סיני לאמר Vayidaber Hashem el Moshe beHar Sinai leimor, reminding us that Hashem spoke to Moshe at Har Sinai and then He gives us the laws of Shmita. The question is Rashi says, מה ענין שמיטה אצל הר סיני Mah inyan Shmita eitzel Har Sinai? What does Shmita have to do with Har Sinai? So someone I know was once in Israel and they had the TV on, and there was an old episode of Kojak showing. And on the episode, Kojak, I don't know who remembers the name of the sidekick on the show. Remember the name of the sidekick? So, uh, whoever it was, it was Rabbi Rabbi J.J. Schacter told us this told this to a group of us. So he said that someone was watching Kojak and it says, he says to the guy next to him, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? So you know in Israel, there are subtitles, you can read the subtitles on the bottom. You learn Hebrew by reading the subtitles while you hear it. So Kojak says to the guy, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? And the subtitles say, מה ענין שמיטה אצל הר סיני Mah inyan Shmita eitzel Har Sinai.That's part of the beauty of in the week in which we celebrated יום העצמאות Yom Ha'atzmaut, think about part of the beauty of Israel, the state of Israel, the modern state of Israel, that ingrained within Jewish living there is is Torah. I don't even know, it's probably entered the, it's become a colloquialism there that מה ענין שמיטה אצל הר סיני Mah inyan Shmita eitzel Har Sinai is what does one thing have to do with the other? Probably half the Israelis who use that expression don't even realize it comes from a Rashi in Parshas Behar. What does one thing have to do with It's like I don't know, I don't know what does that have to do with the what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? I have no idea what that means. It would be good enough if they knew that there was a thing called Rashi. Yeah. So anyway, uh, so that's the beginning of the parsha, and of course Rashi tells us that it's it's a connection to tell us just as Shmita, the principles and the details were all given at Sinai, so to all mitzvos were. Others see it differently, by the way. Some of them meforshim say, no, this is אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה ein mukdam u'meuchar baTorah, the Ibn Ezra says that really all this appears before ספר ויקרא Sefer Vayikra. You go to the end of ספר ויקרא Sefer Vayikra, פרשת בהר Parshas Behar really happened before all of ספר ויקרא Sefer Vayikra, it happened at Har Sinai. בהר סיני לאמר beHar Sinai leimor. This commandment of Shmita was a commandment at Har Sinai. You don't have to get all homiletical on me. But it's not in chronological order, indeed happened way back then. So anyway, the first part of the Torah is all about the idea of Shmita, the sabbatical year. And there's a fascinating debate among the meforshim, we've discussed this in the past, we're not going to discuss it this year, but for whom is Shmita really directed? Who does Shmita benefit? The sabbatical year is for the benefit of whom? For the land or for the farmer? And there's a debate. The answer could be both. It's not they're not mutually exclusive. But we usually assume that it's for the benefit of the land, that the land lays fallow in that seventh year because it needs to rejuvenate, it needs to renew itself.But there's a whole school of thought that says that sabbatical year has nothing to do with the land at all. God created a rich soil that could grow and it could grow seven straight years, it doesn't need a year off. For whom is the sabbatical year? It's for the farmer. That the farmer renews his sense of אמונה emunah and בטחון bitachon. God wants to have, and this is the connection perhaps to Har Sinai, God wants the farmer to take a year off and go back to Har Sinai, go back to a year of dedicated exclusively to learning Torah, receiving the Torah, to connecting to God. The idea of a sabbatical year is the idea of of not worrying about one's livelihood, not worrying about one's פרנסה parnassah, but having faith that the Almighty, or the shul, will provide and being able to enjoy a sabbatical year in which one is exclusively dedicated to getting close to Hashem. So for some, Shmita is an exercise in אמונה emunah. The farmer, I mean, imagine. Imagine if you didn't have a sabbatical built into your contract, you were self-employed, and you self, every farmer is self-employed essentially. And God says to you, you're self-employed? Every seventh year I want you to not work. You say, well, where's my food going to come from? Where's my salary? Where's my income? I got tuitions to pay. God says, don't worry. If you keep the sabbatical properly, the sixth year you'll have enough income to last you the sixth year, the seventh year, and the eighth year. So you're going to it's going to promote and cultivate a great sense of of אמונה emunah when you take off that sabbatical year. So again, there's a big question, is the sabbatical year, the Shmita, is it all about the land? Is it an environmental issue? Is it an earth issue? Is an earth year, not earth day? That you're protecting, allowing it to rejuvenate, it's our responsibility to the earth? Certainly that's also true, but it's also about the farmer and the exercise in אמונה emunah for the farmer. We have the whole idea of of the lands returning, um Isn't it even greater אמונה emunah for over יובל Yovel? Because there's two years like of Shmita, so he's got to have provide for so much more. Yep. Yeah. The the Jewish slave, I'm sorry, the the lands go back, about in יובל Yovel, the slaves go free, the lands go back, ancestral lands, the cities of the לויים Levi'im. The land doesn't go back. כי לי הארץ Ki li ha'aretz, the Rav makes a big point. The person goes back to their own land. Beautiful. Right. And the whole sequence of this is a conditional gift that The individuals reassociated with the land. If you do the right thing, you'll have the land. you come out in Behar but you come out in other words which says Beautiful. Beautiful. Okay, great דיוק diyuk.Okay, so what I want to study together in this short parsha is פרק כ\"ה פסוק ל\"ה Perek Kaf Hey, pasuk Lamed Hey. It's a new section, not in the psukim, but remember, it wasn't the Jewish people who gave these labels. If you look at it's a סתומה stumah, which means it tells us it's a new parsha. A new section from a Torah perspective. Chapter 25, verse 35. פרק כ\"ה פסוק ל\"ה Perek Kaf Hey, pasuk Lamed Hey. וכי ימוך אחיך V'chi yamuch achicha. Everyone see it? וכי ימוך אחיך V'chi yamuch achicha. So in the context of telling us all about Shmita, the sabbatical year, Yovel, the Jubilee year, about the cities of the Levi'im, about the ancestral lands and properties, the Torah now remarks, וכי ימוך אחיך ומטה ידו עמך והחזקת בו גר ותושב וחי עמך v'chi yamuch achicha u'mata yado imach v'hechezakta bo ger v'toshav vachai imach. The Torah tells us if your brother becomes impoverished, becomes indigent, and he falters, he fails, he's falling down, and where is he falling down? ומטה ידו עמך u'mata yado imach, in proximity to you. So והחזקת בו v'hechezakta bo, you're obligated to strengthen him. Who is this? A גר ותושב ger v'toshav, a proselyte or a resident, so that he can live with you, וחי עמך v'chai imach. He lives with you. And the Torah then goes on and tells us more explicitly, what does that mean? It means that if he's failing, he needs a loan. He can't pay the mortgage, he can't pay the tuition, he can't put food on his table. אל תקח מאתו נשך Al tikach meito neshech. You're not allowed to take interest from him, ותרבית v'tarbis. You can't take ותרבית neshech v'tarbis. You can't take two different forms of interest. We'll see in a moment what they mean. Don't take interest and increase. ויראת מאלהיך V'yareisa me'Elokecha. You have to fear God. וחי אחיך עמך v'chai achicha imach, and thereby by giving him an interest-free loan, you will uplift him, you will support him. Of course, we have to explore what's the connection ויראת מאלהיך v'yareisa me'Elokecha? What does economics 101, what do microeconomics have to do with ויראת מאלהיך v'yareisa me'Elokecha, having fear of Hashem? What does one thing have to do with the other? את כספך Et kaspecha, the Torah now repeats itself. את כספך לא תתן לו בנשך ובמרבית לא תתן אכלך Et kaspecha lo sitein lo b'neshech u'v'marbis lo sitein ochlecha. Don't lend him money with interest and don't give him food with interest. Why? Because אני ה' אלהיכם אשר הוצאתי אתכם מארץ מצרים לתת לכם את ארץ כנען להיות לכם לאלהים Ani Hashem Elokeichem asher hotzeisi eschem me'eretz Mitzrayim laseis lachem es eretz Canaan lihyos lachem l'Elokim. I'm the Lord your God, I took you out of Egypt, I promised you the land to be your God. So again, what does one thing have to do? מה ענין שמיטה אצל הר סיני Mah inyan Shmita eitzel Har Sinai? What does one thing have to do with the other? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? God says, don't lend with interest because I took you out of Egypt. What? What does one thing have to do with the other? So there's a lot of expressions here, a lot of questions. וכי ימוך אחיך v'chi yamuch achicha, your your brother is lowered, is impoverished. ימוך Yamuch means to go down. And ומטה ידו עמך u'mata yado imach. He's suffering, he's indigent, in proximity to you. Even that expression is a very funny expression. What does it mean in proximity to you? So your responsibility is והחזקת בו v'hechezakta bo. Uplift him. We should know that the Rav Soloveitchik felt that this verse, this pasuk is not only true on the individual level, that when an individual in your proximity, someone within your sphere of influence, someone that you are exposed to, have access to, is struggling, you're obligated to support him, but it's true on a national level. He remarked about the Holocaust that וכי ימוך אחיך ומטה ידו עמך v'chi yamuch achicha u'mata yado imach, when a generation is lowered, when a generation struggles, when a generation suffers, and they're brought down, והחזקת בו v'hechezakta bo, it's our collective national responsibility that the next generation, והחזקת בו v'hechezakta bo, strengthen, that we provide support and so on. Be true for within one generation also. Our Israeli brothers, כי ימוך אחיך ki yamuch achicha, if they're struggling, if they're suffering, והחזקת בו v'hechezakta bo. But the point is that this pasuk is not only true on the individual level, but והחזקת בו v'hechezakta bo, the Rav saw as being significant on the national or collective level as well, that if you're in proximity and exposed to somebody who's in need of help, you can't close turn a blind eye, but והחזקת בו v'hechezakta bo, it's a mandate to get involved, to help him.So let's look at Rashi, והחזקת בו v'hechezakta bo. אל תניחנו שירד ויפול Al tanichenu sheyereid v'yipol. It's a great insight by Rashi. He says, don't leave him to fall, ויהיה קשה להקימו v'yihe kashe l'hakimo. Which is easier? If you had a 400-pound man who's losing his balance, helping him keep his balance to straighten him up, or if he falls, getting him up off the ground. Which is which is easier? If you've ever walked with an older person and they lose their balance, you're grabbing their belt. Which is easier? Helping them maintain their balance, rebalancing them, or lifting them up off the floor as a dead weight? It's much easier to help someone regain balance than it is to lift them up off the floor. So Rashi says that's pshat, והחזקת בו v'hechezakta bo, before they fall. So וכי ימוך אחיך v'chi yamuch achicha means they're falling. They're on their way down. Don't wait until they've fallen, till they're on תומכי שבת Tomchei Shabbos, till they're desperate for needs, ויהיה קשה להקימו v'yihe kashe l'hakimo, and it'll be really difficult to lift him. אלא חזקהו משעת מותת יד Elah chazkeihu m'sha'as motas yad. The Midrash says, למה הדבר דומה למשוי שעל החמור L'mah hadavar domeh l'masoi she'al hachamor, that if a donkey has a weight on its back and it's slipping off the donkey's back, the donkey's falling, one person can adjust the package on the back of the donkey to straighten the donkey up. But if the donkey falls, five people, takes five people to lift that donkey with that weight off the ground. So the same is true. Even five people can't do it. Even five people can't do it. So the same is true with a human being. Somebody's suffering, somebody's struggling, somebody's imbalanced, somebody's falling, don't wait till they fall, rebalance and readjust them and support them before they fall. It's a brilliant insight into tzedakah and general chesed in general. Chesed and tzedakah are not, you do your best and if you're absolutely destitute and impoverished and indigent and have nothing, then you could come to me. It's if you feel any sense of struggle whatsoever, come to me because I'd love to help you get on your feet before you're upside down on your mortgage, before you're behind in tuition and the school says you can't come back, before all the problems come. Let me help you before that happens to get you back on your feet. It's a brilliant insight by by Rashi.The Ibn Ezra says it's interesting, וכי ימוך אחיך v'chi yamuch achicha, what word seems to be the same word appears twice in the pasuk and seems to be extraneous both times? וכי ימוך אחיך ומטה ידו V'chi yamuch achicha u'mata yado should say, your friend is falling and they're struggling. What does it mean עמך imach, with you? והחזקת בו v'hechezakta bo, strengthen him, גר ותושב ger v'toshav, strengthen him whether he's a proselyte or a citizen. What do you mean? And help him live. What עמך imach with you? That same word appears there twice. Why עמך imach both times? If he's falling in proximity to you, help him live, וחי עמך v'chai imach, lift him up and help him live with you. Why עמך imach twice? Any ideas? If it's with you, then it's your responsibility. It's in your ד' אמות daled amos. You see it. You're part of it. You're living it. Beautiful. So look at the Ibn Ezra. עמך imach, שאתה חייב לנמצא עמו שאתה רואה she'atah chayav l'nimtza imo she'atah ro'eh. You're obligated עמך imach, don't view him as as independent and separate from me. עמך Imach means if he's in your proximity, if he's found, if you've seen him, you were meant to see him. And I'll share with you a very interesting insight by Rav Dov Zev Weinberger, the author of a ספר שמן הטוב Sefer Shemen Hatov. It's a great series. He was a rav, I think the Young Israel of Brooklyn. I believe he's still alive. He has a great insight based on the Baal Shem Tov. Because what does ומטה ידו עמך u'mata yado imach? What do you mean עמך imach? He's struggling in my proximity. What does that have to do with my proximity? If there's a mitzvah to help someone struggling, go find someone struggling and do the mitzvah. What does it mean in my proximity? So he says, you know, with the Mishna in Pirkei Avos says, דע מה למעלה ממך, עין רואה ואוזן שומעת וכל מעשיך בספר נכתבים Da mah l'maalah mimcha, ayin ro'ah v'ozen shoma'as v'chol ma'asecha ba'sefer nichtavim. Know what is above you, an eye sees, an ear listens, and all of your actions are recorded. And the Mishna is classically understood to be a description of how we should inspire ourselves. How do you live an inspired life? By recognizing there's something much greater than ourselves. It's not about our own selfish interests, it's not about our immediate gratification, it's not about our pleasure of the moment. But דע מה למעלה ממך da mah l'maalah mimcha. The whole institution of a יארמלקע yarmulke, of a כיפה kippah, is to remember there's something above us. There's something above us. יראת שמים Yiras Shamayim, to realize that there is a God. And if you realize that, you can't help but acknowledge that עין רואה ayin ro'ah, there's somebody watching. It means that even when I'm alone, I'm never alone. And there's an אוזן שומעת ozen shoma'as. There's an ear listening. Everything that I say is being picked up on. And וכל מעשיך בספר נכתבים v'chol ma'asecha ba'sefer nichtavim, my decisions have cosmic impact. What I do is being recorded and has cosmic impact. So that's the classical meaning, that's the classical understanding. But the Baal Shem Tov explains very beautifully, homiletically, an alternative interpretation. He says, no, דע מה למעלה ממך Da mah l'maalah mimcha, know what is above you, that there's a master plan. There's an omnipotent being who divinely runs the world. דע מה למעלה ממך Da mah l'maalah mimcha, it's not about what you see here on earth. It's not about the micro. It's not about what appears superficially right before you. But דע מה למעלה ממך da mah l'maalah mimcha. There's a master plan. There's a grand scheme. And because of that, עין רואה ayin ro'ah, what you see, you are meant to see. And אוזן שומעת ozen shoma'as, your ear, what you hear, you are meant to listen to. And וכל מעשיך בספר נכתבים v'chol ma'asecha ba'sefer nichtavim, and all of your actions based on what you were meant to see and to hear, whether you will indeed respond to what you saw and what you heard, בספר נכתבים ba'sefer nichtavim are going to be recorded. For the Baal Shem Tov, nothing in life is a coincidence whatsoever. Nothing. You walk down the street and you overhear someone groan or moan or krechtz because they're in trouble, you were meant to hear that. And by the way, the Baal Shem Tov had this philosophy of in general anything. If you witnessed two people having a fight, if you heard somebody curse, if you saw something terrible or you saw, you were privileged to see something incredible, you need to reflect why were you meant to see that. Because there are no coincidences. If something, ומטה ידו עמך u'mata yado imach, if something happens in your proximity, you were meant to see it. The God diagrams the intersections of our lives to empower and to enrich us both, the recipient of the kindness and the one who provides it. So we have to notice, we have to have our antenna up, עין רואה ayin ro'ah. It's a whole new interpretation of the Mishna. It's not God's eye who sees everything we do. It's not God's ear who hears everything we do. It means our eyes, עין רואה ayin ro'ah, what we see, we are meant to see. What you heard, you were meant to listen to. Don't close your ears and don't close your eyes. And so Rav Weinberger, the the שמן הטוב Shemen Hatov says, that's pshat, ומטה ידו עמך u'mata yado imach, that the person is struggling עמך imach, in your proximity, you were meant to see it, you were meant to intercede. This was an intersection of your lives, you will grow from it as much as the person that you help. Both of them are operating at the same time. So that while you are watching, seeing, and hearing and realizing everything is coming from הקדוש ברוך הוא HaKadosh Baruch Hu, He's watching, seeing, and hearing everything you do. Right. Right. Absolutely. And the Medrash with the understandable idea of the man watching the job. But very little. Still on the street. I understand. The man who was worth a million dollars yesterday and today he's worth $50,000, to him psychologically it's maybe no different than the person who's just lost a job. And he has to pick his stuff. Certainly one will Agreed. No, Richard, you're 100%. The Rambam writes, and this is in the rules of הלכות צדקה halachos of tzedakah, that you have to support a person according to the lifestyle they were used to. So that that's a very complicated issue. At precisely what I was saying with my question because you can't afford the man who was just You can't afford to, right. Right. So that's why within, listen, we don't have time now, but within the rules of tzedakah, there's a hierarchy. There are priorities in tzedakah. עניי עירך Ani'ei ircha, the poor of your community come first. Who are the poor of your community? Rav Schachter when he was here paskened that the Torah institutions in your community, the day schools have the status of עניי עירך ani'ei ircha. That supporting day schools if you don't even if you don't have children or grandchildren in them, but if you live locally, that's a priority in tzedakah. עניי ארץ ישראל Ani'ei Eretz Yisrael come next, the poor of Israel. There's there's a whole hierarchy and priorities. It's a very complicated sugya, it's a very challenging issue. But you're right. והחזקת V'hechezakta, the notion of strengthening means you got to pick your spots in how you do it. But sometimes it means that if something happened in your proximity, that's the whole pshat of the שמן הטוב Shemen Hatov is that what you saw you were meant to see. Maybe the poor person nationally as well and if we apply that to the national approach Correct. It's it's, well, that may be true. If every community was taking care of their own, I think we'd have a much better situation. In fact, the OU is going to be coming out with a program that that's how they want to solve the tuition crisis. If every community would agree, the individuals in the community, and we're going to start doing this, listing the names of people who join a club that pledge that whatever percentage of their tzedakah dollars stay local. And X percentage of their local tzedakah dollars go to day schools. That you will, so even though you live in Boca and your grandchildren may live in New York, but if you keep your dollars in in Boca, and my parents who live in New York and their grandchildren are in Boca, but they keep their dollars in New York, we all will benefit in the long run. We'll freeze tuition amounts or we can lower them if people are doing what they were designed to do, ma'aser and tzedakah money. So we'll see, והחזקת בו v'hechezakta bo, this is the obligation. By the way, this this is והחזקת בו v'hechezakta bo, people are crumbling under tuitions. I can't tell you how many families I've met with me, how many parents that say, we we'd love to have another child, we have more than enough love to share for another child, we can't afford another child. People are crumbling. They're making decisions about bringing Jewish children into the world because of the cost of Jewish education. והחזקת בו V'hechezakta bo, that's our responsibility. It's to lift them up. It's to lift them up. Okay, let's keep going. The the Ramban has a comment here on וחי אחיך עמך v'chai achicha imach. He says, שיחיה עמך והיא מצוות עשה להחיותו Sheyichyeh imach v'hi mitzvas asei l'hachayoso. When it says that the poor person who's in your proximity, you should sustain them, it says עמך imach, with you. That's also, so we first we explained the first עמך imach. ומטה ידו עמך U'mata yado imach based on the שמן הטוב Shemen Hatov means they're suffering in proximity to you, you have a specific mandate to help them. It's not a coincidence that happened in front of you. Hashem designed it in front of you, your lives to intersect, it's for you to get involved. What's the second עמך imach? וחי עמך V'chai imach, support him so that he lives with you. There's a מצוות עשה mitzvas asei, there's a positive biblical commandment to support him. שממנה למדנו פיקוח נפש במצוות עשה Shemimena l'madnu pikuach nefesh b'mitzvas asei. This is the obligation to save a life. פיקוח נפש וחי עמך Pikuach nefesh, v'chai imach, let him live with you. Who says we have another we have a לאו lav, לא תעמוד על דם רעך Lo sa'amod al dam reiecha. לא תעמוד על דם רעך Lo sa'amod al dam reiecha, which we saw a couple of weeks ago, means I have a lav, I have a negative prohibition. If somebody's having a heart attack in front of me, according to American civil law, have I any obligation at all to try to save them? Zero. I could stand and look at the guy having a massive cardiac episode and do nothing. And there's zero legal liability to me. The Good Samaritan law in America doesn't mandate me to have to get involved. It protects me if I did get involved and I cracked two of his ribs while trying to give him CPR, I can't be sued. But in American civil or criminal law, I have zero mandate, zero zero obligation to save. Judaism says, no, you're standing by, somebody's having a heart attack, you don't call 911, you don't go get the defibrillator, you don't do your best to do CPR, לא תעמוד על דם רעך lo sa'amod al dam reiecha, you violated a negative commandment, a lav. There's a positive commandment too, says the Ramban, and that's this pasuk. The positive mitzvah to have to intercede if somebody's suffering of פיקוח נפש pikuach nefesh comes from וחי אחיך עמך v'chai achicha imach. מכאן אמרו umikan amru, and from here we continue. And this is a Gemara, a famous Gemara in Bava Metzia that Ramban quotes, וחי אחיך עמך זו דרש בן פטורא V'chai achicha imach zu darash Ben Petura. Here he has the gearsa Ben Putiri but it's Ben Petura. שנים שהיו מהלכין בדרך וביד אחד מהם קיתון של מים Shnayim shehayu mehalkin baderech v'yad echad meihem kiton shel mayim. This is a famous conundrum, a famous question in the Gemara in Bava Metzia. Two people are walking in the desert, there's one canteen of water. One individual has a canteen of water. אם שותה הוא מגיע לישוב. אם שותין שניהם, שניהם מתים Im shosin hu, magie l'yishuv. Im shosun shneihem, shneihem meisim. If he drinks his canteen of water, he will survive. The other will surely die. If he shares the canteen, the contents of the canteen, they will both surely die. What's the halacha? What's the proper thing to do? Ben Petura said, מוטב ישתו שניהם וימותו, ואל יראה אחד במיתתו של חברו Mutav yishtu shneihem v'yamusu v'lo yir'eh echad b'misaso shel chavero. They should both die. How could we just said, you can't stand idly by while your friend dies? You're going to drink and allow him to die of thirst in front of you. How could you passively stand idly by while he dies of thirst in front of you? Share it. Share it. And if the result is you both die, that's a later result to come. But you're denying him the water will surely bring his death. That's forbidden. That's Ben Petura. עד שבא רבי עקיבא ולימד Ad sheba Rabbi Akiva v'limed, until Rabbi Akiva that came along and Rabbi Akiva said, no, this pasuk, וחי אחיך עמך v'chai achicha imach, חייך קודמין לחיי חברך chayecha kodmin l'chayei chavercha. He learns from here, not the emphasis on וחי v'chai to make him live, but the emphasis is עמך imach. Support him, sustain him to live with you. Which comes first? The with you. If you're not alive, forget sustaining him. This is the source of what we hear every time you fly on an airplane. Please put on the oxygen mask, take care of yourself before you take care of anybody else. וחי עמך v'chai imach. They can live with you. That's Rabbi Akiva's insight. And that's the Gemara in Bava Metzia.So it's interesting, just to share with you, I was learning this recently, there's a big question whether the prohibition when we talk about יהרג ואל יעבור Yareig v'al ya'avor. There's three cardinal sins that if you violate them, you've you violated, it's preferable to give up your life than to violate them. We call the three cardinal sins: עבודה זרה, גילוי עריות, ושפיכות דמים Avodah zarah, gilui arayos, v'shfichas damim. Idolatry, promiscuity, and murder. Someone puts a gun against your head and says, eat this cheeseburger or I'll kill you. What do you do? Eat the cheeseburger. Because it says the pasuk says, וחי בהם v'chai bahem, the Torah was given to live with. The whole purpose of Torah was to enrich your life. If Torah will mean sacrificing your life, then there's no point in Torah. וחי בהם V'chai bahem, live by them, live through them. Eat the cheeseburger. Someone puts a gun to your head and says, violate Shabbos or I'm going to blow your head off. What do you do? You violate Shabbos. But if somebody says, puts a gun to your head and says, kill so and so or I'm killing you, what do you have to do? You have to get killed. You have to give your life. You have to you have to be willing to die. What is the point of a chupa? What is the first one that? What is exactly? What? The first one, the one that is. The first one is idolatry. You can't bow down to an idol. Does כוונה kavanah make a difference? There's all discussions in that. So, right, right. That's true in general. But if it's שעת השמד sha'as ha'shmad, if they tell you, they're trying to convert all the Jews and they put a gun to your head, then you have to be willing to die even for the most minor mitzvah, because that's all of Jewish integrity at stake. So that's a different question altogether. To keep the water from the other person in the other example that you gave is not murder. Oh! So good. So that's exactly where we're going, Dori. So the question is, I have to die rather than kill someone. But this prohibition of יהרג ואל יעבור Yareig v'al ya'avor, the obligation that I have to die rather than kill someone, is that only true that I have to die rather than actively kill someone or is it also true in terms of passively killing someone? Is it preferable for me to die rather than passively kill someone or is it preferable to die only rather than actively kill someone? Interesting question, right? So what's what's an example of passively killing someone? Let's say they say, I'm either going to blow, if you don't let me, the non-Jew, could be a Jew, this cruel person comes and says, I'm I'm going to lift your body and throw it on top of a baby, which will suffocate and kill the baby. Either allow me to lift your body and throw it on the baby or I'm going to kill you. Are you obligated there to give up your life? Because there you'll say, well, I haven't actively killed the baby. I'm I'm playing the role of I'm a cement block. I'm passive. I'm just standing here. I've done nothing. He picked me up and threw me on top of the baby. So is the mitzvah of יהרג ואל יעבור Yareig v'al ya'avor, is the mandate of die rather than kill only true for passive killing or is it even true, only true for active killing rather, or is it even true for passive killing? Where does this question come up? It comes up in one of the other three cardinal sins. I'm probably going to talk about on Shavuos night. You need to find a topic that will keep people awake at midnight. So this is my topic probably for Shavuos night. Sleeping with the enemy. The permissibility of sleeping with the enemy. Are you, it came out about a year ago that a very prominent female politician in Israel, I'll leave it at that, that before her career in politics, she was in the Mossad, and it was revealed that when she was in the Mossad, and she was in France I think it was, there was more than one time where she befriended and slept with the enemy under the guise of being a girlfriend in order to access intelligence. So is it permissible? Because we know it's יהרג ואל יעבור Yareig v'al ya'avor. The איסור גילוי עריות issur gilui arayos. Would you be permissible to violate גילוי עריות gilui arayos? Could you violate the prohibition of promiscuity in order to gain intelligence to save others? Even though it's even though it's יהרג ואל יעבור Yareig v'al ya'avor. The permissibility of sleeping with the enemy. What? She was married? Assume she was married at the time. Really? So where do you where does that whole sugya come from? What's the source of that whole conversation? We'll have it on Shavuos night. Where is an example in Tanach of someone sleeping with the enemy even though they were married? Esther. Esther. Esther was sleeping with Achashverosh even though she's married to Mordechai. Because her relationship with with Achashverosh was critical and key to the the survival of the Jewish people. Why is that different? That was different why, and from what I understood, was that she was forced to do that. It was considered forced, יהרג ואל יעבור Yareig v'al ya'avor. What do you mean? She should have died. She should have said to Achashverosh, I can't sleep with you. I'm a married woman. So if she sleeps with me, can't embarrass the king. sleeps with me or I'll kill you. She should say let him kill me. Then kill me. Then I'll give my life. Why did Esther not give her life rather than sleep with אחשורוש Achashverosh? So the גמרא Gemara has a discussion about this, תוספות Tosfos has a discussion about this and the גמרא Gemara ultimately, giving you a little preview for שבועות Shavuos night, גמרא Gemara ultimately says, אסתר קרקע עולם היתה Esther karka olam hayta. She was, she made herself limp. She was like a she was like a קרקע עולם karka olam. She was passive. She was limp and passive when she would have relations with אחשורוש Achashverosh. Now everyone's going to come to שבועות Shavuos night. What? Oh, so but it generates a conversation. Is the prohibition of גילוי עריות gilui arayos, all three of these cardinal sins, one has to give their life rather than violate them, certainly than actively violate them. Is it also true to give one's life rather than passively violate them? Can you violate it בשב ואל תעשה b'shev v'al ta'aseh? Now, can you assume that you can be engaged in an act of intimacy passively? Can a man also be passive in an act of intimacy? That's also part of the conversation. Let's say someone puts a gun to a man's head and says, sleep with her or I'll kill you. Can he be קרקע עולם karka olam? Can he, or by definition a man in that act can't be. Come שבועות Shavuos night and we'll we'll keep you awake with that. So there's a big discussion based on that. There's תוספות Tosfos and the רמב\"ם Rambam have a big debate about this issue. תוספות Tosfos and the רמב\"ם Rambam of violating the cardinal sins בשב ואל תעשה b'shev v'al ta'aseh passively. And in that context, the מנחת חינוך Minchas Chinuch tries to bring proof and Reb Chaim Soloveitchik, the great ר' חיים בריסקער Reb Chaim Brisker, the מנחת חינוך Minchas Chinuch tried to bring proof from this case of the argument between בן פטורא Ben Petura and רבי עקיבא Rebbi Akiva. That that was the debate between בן פטורא Ben Petura and רבי עקיבא Rebbi Akiva. That בן פטורא Ben Petura says that even בשב ואל תעשה b'shev v'al ta'aseh, there's a דין din of מסירות נפש mesiras nefesh. בן פטורא Ben Petura says, even though you've done nothing. It's your canteen of water. You haven't killed the other person by denying them your water. You haven't actively killed them. It's your water, you're entitled to drink it. But בן פטורא Ben Petura says so what? יהרג ואל יעבור Yareg v'al ya'avor בשב ואל תעשה b'shev v'al ta'aseh is also רציחה retzicha בשב ואל תעשה b'shev v'al ta'aseh is also רציחה retzicha. To passively kill him is also better for you to die than do it. And that's בן פטורא's Ben Petura's סברא svara. What בן פטורא Ben Petura was saying was, I know that if I share my canteen, I will also die. But that's what the Torah says. Better to die than to kill. And to deny him water is equivalent to killing him. That's בן פטורא Ben Petura. Comes along רבי עקיבא Rebbi Akiva. You could know. Let's say he's a scientist. No, he's a scientist and he knows the laws of hydration and he knows that the the canteen has so many cc of water and if we split them then we can again, it's a hypothetical. But once we're already in the hypothetical, we can make it our own hypothetical. And in our hypothetical, he knows exactly. If we split it, we'll surely die. If I drink the whole thing, then I can surely live. Sorry. When the volume went up. Then I can surely live. So בן פטורא Ben Petura proves from here or says the מנחת חינוך Minchas Chinuch says ר' חיים סולובייצ'יק Reb Chaim Soloveitchik, sorry, says ר' חיים בריסקער Reb Chaim Brisker, בן פטורא's Ben Petura's סברא svara was, איסור רציחה בשב ואל תעשה issur retzicha b'shev v'al ta'aseh is also יהרג ואל יעבור yehareg v'al ya'avor. To passively kill someone, it's also preferable that I die. Comes along רבי עקיבא Rebbi Akiva and he says no. When did the Torah say I have to die? בקום ועשה B'kum v'aseh. I can't take out a gun and kill him in order to save my life. But for me to drink my own canteen of water, even though it will result in his death, that's passive. I haven't done anything. And there the Torah says וחיי אחיך עמך v'chai achicha imach. עמך Imach, there my first responsibility is to keep myself alive. My first responsibility is to make sure that I'm still alive. Doesn't the גמרא Gemara say that if you're on a boat, your mother and your father, which one do you save? And if you answer the question, you're a רשע rasha. Isn't that because you don't know until it happens that you possibly can't save both? Isn't that the same with בן פטורא Ben Petura saying with the water? I mean, maybe it's similar. Right, but again, but within our hypothetical, because the Torah's trying to create a construct, and sometimes it gives the extreme examples of the hypothetical in order to deduce the principles. The חזון איש Chazon Ish, by the way, disagrees with this ר' חיים Reb Chaim and says you can't prove it from here. Why? Because the חזון איש Chazon Ish says we're not measuring in certainty. Give the water, he lives indefinitely. Don't give the water, he dies immediately. We're measuring incrementally. At this moment if you give water, he'll live חיי שעה chayei sha'ah. He'll live for a certain finite more amount of time. So I have the ability to Right, exactly. So I have the ability to save both of our lives for 20 minutes. So you can't say, you can't measure it in such uh categorical terms. Either he lives, either I live, or we both die. You can't measure it like that. We can both live for 20 minutes. True, certainly after 20 minutes, we'll both die. But for 20 minutes, we can both live. So if you measure it incrementally, then maybe I do have the obligation to save him, לא תעמוד על דם רעך lo saamod al dam re'echa. So the חזון איש Chazon Ish rejects ר' חיים's Reb Chaim's analysis because he says you have to measure it incrementally, not measure it in the in the broader scheme. I we you could spend a lot more time on this. You could give a fascinating חבורה chabura, למדוס lamdus, the ר' חיים Reb Chaim, the מנחת חינוך Minchas Chinuch, the חזון איש Chazon Ish, שב ואל תעשה shev v'al ta'aseh, יהרג ואל יעבור yehareg v'al ya'avor. I'm just bringing it up because the רמב\"ן Ramban here brought it up. It's all based on this פסוק pasuk, וחי עמך v'chai imach. You're obligated to sustain the person dying with you. And רבי עקיבא Rebbi Akiva used this פסוק pasuk to prove you save yourself first because there's no point, you can't save him at your own expense. ווייטער Vayter. Are we doing on time? Yikes. אל תיקח מאתו נשך ותרבית ויראת מאלקיך Al tikach meito neshech v'tarbis v'yareisa me'elokecha. We said, don't take interest from him and fear God. What's the connection between don't take interest and fear God? Says רש\"י Rashi, לפי שדעתו של אדם נמשכת אחר הריבית lefishe'daato shel adam nimsheches achar haribis, וקשה לפרוש הימנו v'kasheh l'farush heimenu. Because interest is very enticing. People love their money. People love their money. What's the Hebrew word for money? We call it כסף kesef. The גמרא Gemara uses a different term for money. I've shared this with you before. גמרא Gemara calls money דמים damim. Why דמים damim? מהר\"ל Maharal and others say, because money is an expression, a reflection of your blood, your sweat, and your tears. Assuming you weren't born with a silver spoon in your mouth. Not talking about that you inherited the money or you won the lottery. But for people who are self-made, that money is the result of their hard work and their effort. Forget being rich, even if you're modestly successful, even if you're poor, whatever limited money you have, it's the result of your hard work. It's called דמים damim. Money is, that's why by the way there's an opinion, believe it or not, we discussed this after that hurricane in New Orleans where people were looting the Walmarts in order to take water. Is it permissible to steal to save a life? The Heinz dilemma. You know what the Heinz dilemma was? Heinz was not ketchup. Was not a dilemma of whether to put ketchup or mustard on your hot dog. That was not the Heinz dilemma. Heinz was a German philosopher and he had the following dilemma, hypothetical. He says the uh, the drug company, the pharmaceutical company invested hundreds of millions of dollars in order to create that drug. Now it's being sold at the pharmacy because they have to recoup their costs and make a profit, $5,000 a dose. Person's wife is terminally ill. The only thing that can save her is that drug, he can't afford it. They can't afford it. He tries to work it out with the pharmacist, no can do. No insurance company, healthcare, nothing can help him. Should what are the ethics of his breaking into the drugstore, the pharmacy to steal the drug to save his wife? Are you allowed to מציל עצמו בממון חברו matzil atzmo b'mamon chaveiro? Can you save yourself with someone else's money? That's essentially what happened after the hurricane with New Orleans. People were breaking into Walmarts in order to get water, in order to get food, in order to get provisions in order to save their lives. It's not a מצוה הבאה בעבירה mitzva haba'ah ba'aveira? Not a מצוה הבאה בעבירה mitzva haba'ah ba'aveira, exactly. Forget the מצוה mitzva component. It's not a מצוה mitzva to save my life. It's I'm saving my life. Maybe מצוה mitzva to save your life by stealing. Maybe the Heinz dilemma. So can you steal with someone else's? So it's actually believe it or not, you would think it's an you should think I once gave that class, you think it would be a minute and a half class. פיקוח נפש Pikuach nefesh, וחיי עמך v'chai imach, the רמב\"ן Ramban says there's an obligation of פיקוח נפש pikuach nefesh. פיקוח נפש Pikuach nefesh is דוחה כל התורה כולה docheh kol haTorah kulah. פיקוח נפש Pikuach nefesh, saving a life, supersedes all the מצוות mitzvos in the Torah with the exception of three. Stealing is not one of these three. It's an open and shut case. It should take a minute and a half. Except, there's a גמרא Gemara which implies that stealing is included in the big three. How? So what's one of the opinions the ראשונים Rishonim explain? The ראשונים Rishonim say you take money, it's like you're killing him. Money's called דמים damim. Money is a life source. Money is how we sustain ourselves. For you to steal from someone else is the equivalent of killing them because you've taken away their ability to sustain themselves. You're not allowed to save a life by killing someone else. That's not the opinion that we follow. We follow the opinion it would be permissible in that case ultimately is the conclusion that we that we lead. There's also another analysis which we'll save for another time, we may actually discuss at the שבת Shabbos. But the concept of a רודף rodef. If someone has medicine that could save someone else's life and they're not sharing it, are they the equivalent of a רודף rodef? Are they like a murderer? That you're now entitled to Steve, steal. Right? So there's all kinds of fascinating ethical dilemmas that come in uh come into this equation. So I'm sharing this with you only because that's what רש\"י Rashi says. Money is דמים damim. Money's a person's life. To the extent that there's an opinion that says that you're that you can't steal someone else's money. That's included in יהרג ואל יעבור yehareg v'al ya'avor of רציחה retzicha. It's murder. To steal is equivalent to murder, and therefore you can't steal. It's one of the three cardinal sins. So רש\"י Rashi says because a person considers their money their life, it's their blood, sweat, and tears, they don't want to lend it for nothing, right? I'm not a economist, I'm a rabbi. But it's economics 101 to know the time value of money. There's a time value to money. That means to say that if I have $1,000 today, my having the thousand dollars for the next month has a value versus not having access to that thousand dollars. It gives me one value, first of all, that I could spend it. And if I don't have it, I can't spend it. Another time value to money is I can invest it. I could gain profit on my money. There's a time value to money. There's a great time value to money. So um, I'll tell you when I was this summer I spent at Kellogg, I learned, you know, you learn about the time value of money and how major companies can use that in terms of inventory and how they move inventory. Dell computers requires customers to pay when they make their purchase long before their order arrives. But they only pay their vendors, and Dell can afford to do this because the vendors are happy to have their business, after 90 days. So you'll say what's the big deal? So you have any clue the profit Dell turns by having that money for 90 days? When you go online and you order a Dell computer today, you give your credit card, you pay immediately $1,000, let's say. But Dell, assembling that computer, doesn't have to pay those parts for 90 days. They have your thousand dollars for 90 days. Sitting on it. There's a time value to that money. Dell could be investing it, they could be lending it, they could be this, they could be that. There's a time value to it's a חכמה chochma. You think Dell makes money because they sell computers. No, Dell makes money also just in that inventory management. There's a time value to money. So you come and you want to borrow money from me, I say to you, I love my money. Maybe I want to spend my money. I could turn a profit on that money. Why should I give you my money for free? I'm going to charge you for giving you my money. I know you're going to give me back all my money, but you can't make up my the loss of my time value of money. So I want you to give me interest, 5%, 10%, 3%, whatever the market is. So רש\"י Rashi says ויראת מאלקיך v'yareisa me'elokecha. קשה לפרוש ממנו kasha l'frosh mimenu. People have trouble parting with their money and forfeiting the time value of money. So מורה לו עצמו היתר בשביל מה שהיו בטלים אצלו moreh lo atzmo heter b'shvil ma shehayu b'teilim etzlo. רש\"י Rashi was a vintner. He was a businessman. He understood the notion of time value of money. He had inventory that he moved as well. He had a winery that he operated. So he says a person could be מורה היתר בעצמו moreh heter b'atzmo. A person, bless you, is going to justify it to themselves and say, I could charge interest because I'm taking a loss. The loss is that I could have been making money with that money. הוד צרך לומר Hod tzorech lomar, so that's why the Torah had to say, ויראת מאלקיך v'yareisa me'elokecha. Have a fear and awe of God. או הטועה למראית עין בגוי כדי להלוות לישראל ברבית שהוא דבר המושך ליבו של אדם עד ראשו O hatoyeh l'maris ayin bagoy kedei l'halvos l'yisrael b'ribbis shehu davar hamoshech leebo shel adam ad rosho. וכן הוד צרך לומר ויראת מאלקיך v'chein hod tzorech lomar v'yareisa me'elokecha. A person will say, I'll use a non-Jew's money, I'll structure it in a loophole way to try to lend money because I want to make money off of this loan. That's what the Torah says, ultimately, ויראת מאלקיך v'yareisa me'elokecha. Be God-fearing. But רש\"י Rashi didn't really answer. What does ויראת מאלקיך v'yareisa me'elokecha have to do with interest? Why is ויראת מאלקיך v'yareisa me'elokecha going to be the antidote? Why is that going to solve when you have that temptation to say, I'm going to justify, I'll rationalize, I could charge interest because I'm losing money. No, ויראת מאלקיך v'yareisa me'elokecha, remember God. What does one thing have to do with the other? היתר עסקה Heter iska. At the היתר עסקה heter iska is a legal loophole that gets you out of it. It's structured not as a but it's a It's structured as a business investment with a return rather than as a loan. So when you lend me money, you become my partner where I promise you a 5% return in advance on the money you've invested in me whether I'll have a loss or a or a profit. It's a loophole. I'll give you that return. It becomes a legal loophole because it restructures the whole thing. So what's the connection? So I think פשט pshat is very simple. פשט pshat is very simple. You trust in Hashem. ויראת מאלקיך v'yareisa me'elokecha means you realize, where does your פרנסה parnassah, where does your livelihood, where does your your prosperity come from? It comes from God. So if God wants you to make an extra sale, an extra deal, you know, get an extra bonus this year, then God will allow that to happen. So if God says don't make money over here, I'll help you make the money over here. And you say, no, I'm nervous and I'm entitled to make money over here because I did there's a time value, I lent my money. You have you're not God-fearing. You're a כופר kofer. I think that's also the connection to אני ה' אלקיכם אשר הוצאתי אתכם מארץ מצרים ani Hashem Elokeichem asher hotzeisi eschem mei'eretz Mitzrayim. When you lend with interest, you are a heretic. You're denying God's role. That's what the Torah is saying, ויראת מאלקיך v'yareisa me'elokecha. You're not God-fearing if you lend with interest because you don't believe that God will take care of. You know, you stood to make 5% on that loan, and God said forfeit the 5%. If you don't listen to God and you charge the 5%, you don't believe that God will help you find the 5% elsewhere. because there God himself said, again if you conclude that הלכה halacha allows you to do it, so God's saying go do it. God's saying, I did save you. I gave you Walmart, go get the water. Yeah, it's a slippery slope. It's a slippery slope. Again, the Heinz dilemma, how far do you go? And are you willing to steal to and so on and so forth? It's a slippery slope, but uh you know, it's a whole, yeah, that's the question. Right, exactly, exactly. Do you have do you have to repay Walmart in some kind of Right, do you have do you have to repay them? If you've used their thing to save your life, do you have to repay them? Right. It's a good question. The רמב\"ן Ramban then said, what's the difference between נשך neshech and תרבית tarbis? It's a גמרא Gemara, the fifth פרק perek of בבא מציעא Bava Metzia, איזו נשך eizehu neshech. I'm sorry, yeah. At the end of פסוק pasuk and then at the end of פסוק pasuk, the difference is between to a and not for בני אחיך bnei achicha and not and then to כל Yeah, I'll tell you the difference. פסוק למד ה' Pasuk lamed hei applies to a גר ותושב ger v'toshav also. To a non-Jew also, someone keeping the שבע מצוות בני נח sheva mitzvos bnei Noach also. פסוק למד ו' Pasuk lamed vav is, you're only not allowed to charge interest to a non-Jew, to a Jew, but you can charge interest to a non-Jew. Which is a big question. I don't want to steal the thunder of the בר מצוה bar mitzvah boy tomorrow. I helped him with the speech, but I'll tell you and then you'll forget it by tomorrow. This is just for the benefit of anyone listening on the MP3 who will not hear the בר מצוה bar mitzvah boy tomorrow. But it's a fundamental question. Is charging interest immoral or moral? Immoral or moral? So the answer is, it has to be moral. How do I know that charging interest has to be something which is moral? Because if it was immoral, how could I charge interest to a non-Jew? It has to be something which is moral. So if charging interest is moral, because we spoke about the time value of money, why can't I charge to a Jew? Aren't I entitled to make that money? It's not really even making money. I'm recouping my loss of lending the money, because of the time value of money. You're treating a Jew like you're your brother. Ah, so the answer is, the answer is, if a stranger knocks on my door and says, \"Hey brother, could I borrow five bucks?\" So maybe I say, \"You could borrow five bucks, but you gotta give back six.\" But if my brother comes to me and he says, \"Hey bro, I'm really struggling, I have nothing, can you help me?\" You charge interest? You're a ממזר mamzer. I mean, you charge your brother, your sister, come to you to take a loan and you're going to set up an interest structure? What kind of person are you? Your family has to be different than a stranger. So the entire prohibition of charging ריבית ribbis, this is a phenomenal insight. The Torah, God says, interest? Absolutely moral. Charge it to a non-Jew. They have the status of a stranger. But every Jew needs to be like your brother. A Jew comes to you and needs a loan, you've got to see them as if it's your own son or your own daughter, as if it's your own brother or your own sister. You can't charge interest. Not because it's immoral, it's perfectly moral, that's why you could charge it to a non-Jew. But because they're your brother, and there's certain things you don't do. So the whole מצוה mitzva, the whole איסור issur, I should say, of charging ריבית ribbis is designed to promote brotherhood. It's designed to promote a sense of fraternity, that the Jewish people are one family. And that's why we have this whole מצוה mitzva. And that's why it says וחיי אחיך עמך v'chai achicha imach, to your brother. Yes. They have they have היתר עסקה'ס heter iska's set up. Bank Leumi and so on, operate through a היתר עסקה heter iska. Even though it's a corporate entity. Right, so there right, it's a question. Right, if it's a corporate entity it might be different than It's not really an individual. Yeah, it's interesting. So what's the difference between נשך neshech and ריבית ribbis? Fifth פרק perek of בבא מציעא Bava Metzia is considered to be the hardest פרק perek in ש\"ס Shas to learn. Very complicated, very difficult. איזו נשך Eizehu Neshech it's called. And it deals with a lot with this question. The רמב\"ן Ramban defines it. The רמב\"ן Ramban says, חד שויו רבנן לאו אורא לשני לאוין לשון רש\"י chad shavyu Rabbanan la'av or la'shnei lavin l'shon Rashi. רש\"י Rashi tells us based on the גמרא בבא מציעא Gemara Bava Metzia that really there's no difference. It's just that to tell us how egregious it is. If you charge interest, excuse me, you you've you get a double whammy. You've violated not one thing, but you've violated two things. The רמב\"ן Ramban says, no, I think there's a difference. לפי פשוטו נראה בעיני כי נשך הוא שיאמר לו מנה תיתן לו בריבית ו... חמשה שקלים בכל שנה l'fi pshuto nir'eh b'einai ki neshech hu sheyomar lo maneh titen lo b'ribis v...chamisha shkalim b'chol shanah. ויקרא כן בעבור כי הריבית כנשך יאשך v'yikra kein ba'avur ki haribis k'neshech yoshech, כנחש ישך k'nachash yishoch, שמבצבץ מצבץ ועולה shemevatzeitz metavtzeitz v'oleh. He says נשך neshech means that I give you money and every year you got to pay me interest on it. So that bites you like a snake that keeps coming back to bite you. ריבית הוא שיאמר לו עד זמן פלוני ואז יפרענו ויתן לו ריבית חמשה שקלים אין בו ריבית אחר זמן ההוא Ribbis hu sheyomar lo ad zman ploni v'az yifra'enu v'yiten lo ribbis chamisha shkalim ein bo ribbis achar zman hahu. ריבית Ribbis means I'm giving you loan one time, you're paying me back in 30 days. Here's five dollars, when you pay me back, you give me six. So he says נשך neshech is, I give you five dollars but every year that you still have that five dollars, you're giving me 10% on the five dollars. where whereas that's נשך neshech. It keeps coming back to bite me like a snake. It comes from לנשוך linshoch, to bite. Where whereas ריבית ribbis is a one-time loan where the one-time payment has an interest to it as well. That's what the רמב\"ן Ramban says the difference between the two. The אור החיים הקדוש Ohr Hachaim Hakadosh, the holy אור החיים Ohr Hachaim, he goes through these פסוקים psukim and he describes them all homiletically, very, very beautifully. We don't have time because I unfortunately have to end a little early today, have to finish here. He says כי ימוך אחיך ומטה ידו עמך ki yamuch achicha u'mata yado imach is not homiletically referring to financially struggling, but spiritually struggling. You see somebody who's spiritually down and out. They're losing their faith in God, they're losing their observance, they're starting to give up on שבת Shabbos and כשרות kashrus and טהרת המשפחה taharas hamishpacha, כי ימוך אחיך ki yamuch achicha. You see somebody who's spiritually struggling. So that's the obligation והחזקת בו v'hechezakta bo. You have to uplift them, you have to strengthen them. And the goal is ויראת מאלקיך v'yareisa me'elokecha. The goal is that you fear God, you're going to encourage, you're going to help somebody. And it's כספך לא תתן לו בנשך kaspecha lo siten lo b'neshech, he keeps this theme, this idea of a homiletic interpretation that it's not about physical world but it's a spiritual struggle and you have to spiritually sustain them. He keeps that theme going all the way through, that את כספך לא תיתן בנשך es kaspecha lo sitein b'neshech, that you can't, they're there, you have to help them, but their relationship with the physical world shouldn't be like נשך neshech, it shouldn't drag them, they shouldn't be dragged by it and follow it, but they have to own it, and so on and so forth. Very beautiful. I'll just end by showing you the last רש\"י Rashi on this section. פסוק למד ח Pasuk lamed ches. This little section about not charging interest ended, I am Hashem who took you out of Egypt to give you the land of כנען Kena'an in order to be for you a God. What do you mean, to give you the land of כנען Kena'an to be a God? You you brought us out to be our God. You became our God in מצרים Mitzrayim, on הר סיני Har Sinai, we were in the מדבר midbar. Then you took us into the land. Why did you reverse the order? You took us into the land in order to be our God. So look what רש\"י Rashi says. You want to feel guilty the week of יום העצמאות Yom Ha'atzmaut? Look at this רש\"י Rashi. כל הדר בארץ ישראל אני לו לאלוקים, וכל היוצא ממנו כעובד עבודת זרה Kol hadar b'eretz Yisrael ani lo l'elokim, v'chol hayotzei mimenu k'oved avodah zarah. Which one you doing? רש\"י Rashi להיות לכם לאלוקים lihyos lachem l'elokim. Because God says, I took you into Israel to be your God, says רש\"י Rashi, I'm only really your God in Israel. You want to be living Judaism, you want to be living Judaism to its fullest? You want to really be living an authentic Judaism where Judaism is integrated into your everyday life, where where the subtitle on on Kojak is רש\"י Rashi in פרשת בהר Parshas Behar? Then you got to go to Israel. Outside of Israel, the רמב\"ן Ramban, there's a famous רמב\"ן Ramban. רמב\"ן Ramban says outside of Israel, it's all practice. You're practicing so that when you get to Israel and you're in the game, you're ready to go. In חוץ לארץ chutz la'aretz, we're sitting on the bench. We're on the sidelines of Jewish destiny. In Israel, it's really unfolding. That is clearly where we all belong. And that רש\"י Rashi takes that from this פסוק pasuk that I took you out, לתת לכם את ארץ כנען להיות לכם לאלוקים laseis lachem es eretz Kenaan lihyos lachem l'elokim, it's out of order. Should have been I became your God then I took you into Israel. No, I took you into Israel to be your God because if you really love me and you really want to follow my design for life, I am your God most authentically when you live in Israel.
