| א. "לא תראה... והתעלמת" |
| A. "You shall not see... and hide yourself" |
"Thou shalt not see thy brother’s ox... and hide thyself"
פעמים שאתה מתעלם – ופעמים שאי אתה מתעלם – כיצד? (=מה הם המקרים שבהם מותר להתעלם?) היה כהן והיא (האבדה) בבית הקברות או שהיה זקן ואינה לפי כבודו או שהיתה שלו מרובה משל חברו – פטור. לכן נאמר "והתעלמת" – פעמים שאתה מתעלם.
"and (you shall) ignore": Sometimes you do ignore (a lost object), and sometimes you do not ignore. How so? If he were a Cohein and the object were in the cemetery, (which a Cohein is forbidden to enter), or if he were an elder (i.e., a Torah scholar) and it were beneath his dignity (to retrieve it), or if his labor (to retrieve it) were greater than that of his neighbor, he is exempt (from retrieving it). This is the intent of "and you ignore" — Sometimes you do ignore and sometimes you do not.
באר יצחק, על רש"י:
מנהג הלשון לסמוך מילת האזהרה לפועל הראשון לקישוט הלשון ותיקונו, אם פועל הראשון הוא תנאי ואזהרה של פועל שני, כמו במשפט הבא בפסוק שלפנינו שאין המצוה לחזור אחרי אבדת חברו, אם אינו יודע היכן היא; אבל המצוה שבראותו אבדת חברו להשתדל להשיבה אליו... והיה יכול לומר: "כי תראה את שור אחיך או שיו נדחים – לא תתעלם מהם". אבל מנהג הלשון לסמוך מילת האזהרה לפועל הראשון לפעמים לתפארת.
Beer Yitzchak on Rashi:
It is customary for the language to make the word of the warning ("do not") adjacent to the first verb, as an embellishment of the language and its finish - even when the first verb is [only] the condition and the warning is for the second verb, like the phrase that comes in the verse before us. As the commandment is not to look for his fellow's lost object if he doesn't know where it is. Rather the commandment is that when he sees his fellow's lost object, he should make efforts to return it to him... And it could have said, "If you see the ox of your fellow or his sheep gone astray, do not hide yourself." However, the custom of the language is to sometimes place the word of the warning adjacent to the first word for beauty.
1. Explain the words in bold in the Sifrei.
2. בעל באר יצחק מסביר שמנהג הלשון הוא לכתוב כפי שכתוב בפסוקנו. התוכל להביא עוד דוגמאות ל"מנהג הלשון" הזה?
2. The author of Beer Yitzckak explains that the custom of the language is to be written the way our verse is written. Are you able to bring other examples of this "custom of the language?"
3. ומקשים על רש"י: אם מנהג הלשון לדבר כן – מה ראה רש"י להביא גם מדרש חכמינו ולא הסתפק בפירוש הכתוב לפשוטו, והלא אין מדרכו להביא מדרשי חז"ל אלא אם כן לא מצא קורת רוח בפירוש לפי פשוטו בלבד!
3. And they raise this difficulty about Rashi: If the custom of the language is to speak like this, why did Rashi see fit to also cite the midrash of our Sages and not suffice with the simple meaning of the verse; is it not the case that it is not his way to cite a midrash of the Sages, may their memory be blessed, unless he was not satisfied with the understanding [of the verse] according to its simple explanation alone?
| ב. "עד דרוש אחיך" |
| B. "Until your brother seeks it." |
"then thou shalt bring it home to thy house, and it shall be with thee until thy brother require it, and thou shalt restore it to him."
והיה עמך עד דרוש אחיך אותו. (ב"מ כח) וכי עלתה על דעתך, שאתה נותן לו, עד שלא יתן סימניו! אם כן למה נאמר עד דרוש אחיך אותו? עד שתדרוש את אחיך, אם רמאי הוא, אם אינו רמאי.
"until your brother inquires concerning it": Would it enter your mind to give it to him without his giving identifying signs? Why, then, is it written "until your brother inquires concerning it"? (The meaning must be, then,) "until you make inquiry concerning your brother" (to ascertain) whether or not he is a deceiver, (this being a possible construction of the words in the Hebrew.)
עד דרש אחיך [AND IT SHALL BE WITH THEE] UNTIL THY BROTHER ENQUIRES [FOR IT] — But would it ever enter your mind that one could give it back before he inquires about it (Scripture distinctly states that you do not know to whom the animal belongs)?! But the meaning of the verse is: Thou shalt make diligent enquiries of him that he should not be a fraudulent claimant (Bava Metzia 27b. 28a; cf. Sifrei Devarim 223:4).
דברי דוד, על רש"י (מחברו ר' דוד הלוי בעל טורי זהב על שולחן ערוך, נפטר תכ"ז):
ממשמעות הפסוק שאחיך ידרוש את האבדה שיחזירנה לו, ורש"י פירש באלו מציאות (דף כ"ז) והרי משמע עד דרשך את אחיך. ונראה דפירושו על פי הגמרא שם דאמר רב הונא: זיל אייתי סהדי (=לך הבא עדים) דלאו רמאי אתה; ועל כן אמר "עד דרוש אחיך" פירוש: אתה תדרוש את אחיך (היינו אם יודעים העדים את בעל האבדה שהוא רמאי אם לאו). וזהו "אותו" כלומר: בעל האבדה מהו.
Divrei David on Rashi (Authored by R. David HaLevi, author of Turei Zahav/Taz on the Shulchan Arukh, d. 1667):
From the simple reading of the verse, when your brother seeks the lost object, you return it to him. But Rashi explains in Elu Metziot (Bava Metzia 27b), "And behold it implies, until you investigate your brother." And it appears that his understanding is according to the Gemara there (28b), "As Rav Huna says, 'Go bring witnesses that you are not a swindler.'" And that is why it stated, "until your brother requires (darush, which can also be read as, is investigated)" - its understanding is, you shall investigate your brother (meaning, if the witnesses know whether the claimant of the lost object is a swindler or not). And this is the meaning of, "it" (here understood as, him), meaning what is [the nature] of the claimant of the lost object.
פירוש: צריך שיתן סימנים בה, ולפי זה יהיה "אחיך" הוא הפעול ש"אחיך" הוא הנדרש שלא היה רמאי, ו"אותו" קאי על "אחיך". והוא כמו (שמות ב' ו') "ותפתח ותראהו את הילד" שבא השם עם הכינוי ובאחד סגי, אלא בא לתוספות ביאור. אך קשה, שנזכר השם קודם הכינוי, ואם היה כתוב "עד דרוש אותו אחיך" היה שפיר, אבל מאחר שנכתב "אחיך אותו" קשה, למה "אותו"? ונראה לי כי כך פירושו: וכי תעלה על דעתך שיתנהו קודם שידרוש אותו? אלא דרשהו שאינו רמאי, כלומר: לכך כתוב "דרוש אחיך אותו", שהוא דורש אחר האבדה ולא שיהיה רמאי מבקש לגזול את חברו, שזה אינו "דורש את האבדה" כלל. ומפני שקשה איך ידע אם בא לגזול את חברו או שדורש את האבדה, אמר: "דרשהו אם רמאי הוא או אינו רמאי". ומה שפירש רש"י "דרשהו" אינו לשון הכתוב של "דרוש אחיך אותו" דודאי הכתוב הוא כמשמעו, אלא שבא לפרש באיזה ענין ידע, שהוא דורש האבדה ואינו גזלן, וקאמר "דרשהו אם רמאי הוא". כן יראה לי.
(Maharal of Prague) in his explanation of Rashi's words above:
The explanation is that he needs to give identifying signs for it. And according to this, "your brother," would be the object, as it is "your brother" that is investigated, that he not be a swindler; and "he/it" refers back to "your brother." And it is like (Exodus 2:6), "When she opened it, she saw him, the child" - wherein the noun comes with its pronoun. Although one is enough, [the noun] comes to add clarification. However it is difficult, as [here] the noun is mentioned before the pronoun - such that if had been written, "until he is investigated, your brother," it would have been fine. But since it is written, "your brother, him," it is difficult - [what is the need for] "him?" So it appears to me that this is the understanding [of Rashi]: But would it ever enter your mind that one could give it back before [the claimant] inquires about it? But rather investigate him that he is not a swindler - meaning this is why it is written, "until your brother seeks it" - that he is seeking the lost object, and not that he is a swindler seeking to rob his fellow. As that is not seeking the lost object at all. And since it is difficult - how will he know if he is coming to rob his fellow or to seek his lost object, [Rashi] said, "investigate him to see if he is a swindler or he is not a swindler." And that which Rashi explained, "investigate him," is not the language of the verse - "your brother seek it" - as the verse is certainly like its plain reading. But rather he came to explain in what way he will know that he is seeking the lost object and is not a robber, about which he said, "investigate him to see if he is a swindler." So does it appear to me.
And the word, "him/it," is to make known that [the word,] "your brother" is an object; as if it had said, "until you investigate your brother." And at the outset, it appears that that "your brother" is the subject, and "him/it" refers to the lost item. And therefore, [Rashi] raised the difficulty, "But would it ever enter your mind that one could give it back before [the claimant] inquires about it?" So he answered, that "your brother" is the object, and "him/it" [refers to] your brother. And he [hence] comes to clarify that it is an object; and that the subject is the one who has the lost object in his hand, such that he should investigate the claimant of the lost object, that he is not a swindler.
1. Explain the peculiarity in the words of Rashi (which are the words of the Sages, may their memory be blessed), to which the author of Divrei David brings our attention.
2. According to the opinion of R. Eliyahu Mizrachi, what forced Rashi to explain the phrase in such a way that seems removed from the simple understanding?
3. According to the words of R. E. Mizrachi, in what way is our verse ostensibly similar to Exodus 2:6?
4. In what way does the author of Gur Aryeh reject this analogy?
5. איך מיישב בעל גור אריה את פליאת דברי דוד?
5. How does the author of Gur Aryeh resolve the peculiarity noted by Divrei David?
6. כמה ממפרשי רש"י – ביניהם ריב"א – מיישבים את דבריו התמוהים בדרך אחרת לגמרי. התוכל למצוא פירוש אחר לדברי רש"י, שעל פיו לא יתרחק הפירוש כל כך ממשמעות הכתוב?
6. Several Rashi commentators - and Riva is among them - resolve [Rashi's] peculiar words in a completely different way. Are you able to find a different understanding of Rashi's words, according to which his explanation will not be so far removed from the plain reading of the verse?
| ג. "והשבותו לו" - שאלות ברש"י |
| C. "And you shall return it to him" - Questions in Rashi |
"וַהֲשֵׁבֹתוֹ לוֹ"
"And you shall return it to him."
והשבתו לו AND THOU SHALT RESTORE IT TO HIM — it is necessary that there be some restoration — that it (the animal) should not eat in your house to its own value, and you claim this from him (in which case there is no actual restoration of what has been lost). From here, they (the Rabbis) derived the law: Whatever works and requires food (as, for instance, oxen, etc., the cost of whose food is set off by the value of its labour) should work and eat; whatever does not work but requires feeding (as, for instance, sheep) should be sold [and the money restored to the man who lost it] (Bava Metzia 28b).
What is Rashi's difficulty in our verse?
| ד. "והתעלמת" - "להתעלם" |
| D. "And you shall hide yourself" - to hied oneself" |
"Thou shalt not see thy brother’s ox or his sheep driven away, and hide thyself from them; thou shalt surely bring them back unto thy brother."
"And so shalt thou do with his ass; and so shalt thou do with his garment; and so shalt thou do with every lost thing of thy brother’s, which he hath lost, and thou hast found; thou mayest not hide thyself."
לא תוכל להתעלם THOU MAYEST NOT HIDE THYSELF — i.e. You must not cover your eyes, pretending not to see it.
לא תוכל להתעלם THOU MAYEST NOT HIDE THYSELF — i.e. You must not cover your eyes, pretending not to see it.
ענה לקושייתו!
Answer his difficulty!
You shall not see... and hide yourself- you shall not see the ox and hide from them.
לא תוכל להתעלם – לית לך רשו (רשות) לאתכסאה.
You shall not hide yourself - you are not allowed to conceal yourself.
מה ראה אונקלוס לשנות בתרגומו את הפועל "להתעלם"?
Why did Onkelos see fit to change the verb for "to hide oneself," in his translation?
| ה. בפירוש המילה "תוכל" |
| E. In Explanation of the Word, "You may not" |
"thou mayest not hide thyself."
לא תוכל. כחביריו:
The phrase, "you cannot" is here to be interpreted as it is in similar instances.
(And see Deuteronomy 17:15, "you may not place upon yourself a foreign man"; and R. Ibn Ezra there.
ועיין דברים כ"א ט"ז לא יוכל לבכר את בן האהובה. ועיין ראב"ע שם.)
And also see Deuteronomy 21:16, "he may not prefer the son of the beloved"; and R. Ibn Ezra there.)
מנחה בלולה, (רפא מפורט):
אע"פ שאתה מתעלם מבני אדם, לא תוכל להתעלם מהקב"ה.
Mincha Belulah (Rapa MiPorto):
Even though you you hide yourself from people, you cannot hide yourself from the Holy One, blessed be He.
מה ההבדל ביניהם בפירוש המילה "תוכל"?
What is the difference between them in their understanding of the word, "you may?"