Sifrei Devarim Reader

"and do not close your hand": There are some who stretch forth their hand and retract it and close their fist.

"to your brother the pauper": If you do not give him, in the end you will take from him. And whence is it derived that if you open (your hand) to him once, in the end you will open it many times? From (Ibid. 8) "But open shall you open your hand to him."

"and lend shall you lend him": If one is impoverished but does not want to take charity, he is given the money as a loan, and then, (when he wishes to return it), it is ceded to him as a gift.

"shall you lend him": If one has the means, but does not wish to fend for himself, he is given the money as a gift, and payment is exacted of him after his death. The sages say: If he has the means and does not wish to fend for himself, he is not attended to. If he is impoverished and does not want to take charity, he is told "Bring a pledge" (as security), in order to appease him.

"sufficient for his lack": You are commanded to sustain him, but not to enrich him.

"which is lacking to him": even a horse, even a servant (if that is what he is used to). And it happened with Hillel the Elder that he gave a pauper of high pedigree a horse with which to work and a servant to attend him.

And it also happened in Upper Galilee that they provided one with a litra of meat from Sepphoris every day.

"unto him": This is a wife (i.e., he is to be provided even with a wife), as it is written (Bereshith 2:18) "I shall make unto him a wife fit for him."

(Devarim 15:9) "Take heed unto yourself": a negative commandment.

"lest there be in your heart a thing belial": From here R. Yehoshua b. Karchah was wont to say: Averting one's eyes from charity is tantamount to serving idols, it being written here "belial," and elsewhere (re idolatry) "belial." Just as there, idolatry is meant, here, too, idolatry.

"The seventh year has drawn near, the year of shemitah." This is as R. Yossi Haglili used to say: If (the intent is that) seven years (are allocated) for each (loan), how has the seventh year" drawn near? Say, then, (that the meaning is one seventh year), universally.

"and your eye be evil against your poor brother, and you not give him, and he shall call against you to the L-rd": I might think that it is a mitzvah for him to do so; it is, therefore, written (Ibid. 24:15) "and he shall not call against you." I might then think that if he calls against you (Ibid. 15:9) "there will be in you a sin," and if not, not; it is, therefore, written (Ibid. 24:15) "and there will be in you a sin" — in any event. Why, then is it written "and he shall call against you"? I make (more) haste to exact payment when he calls than when he does not call. (Ibid. 15:10) "Give": This tells me of only one time.

Whence do I derive (the same for) even a hundred times? From "Give shall you give."

"to him": between yourself and him, in respect to which they said: There was a "chamber of the secret ones" in Jerusalem, in which the fearers of sin would reposit (charity) secretly, and from which the poor of high pedigree would take secretly.

"for in consequence of this thing" ("davar," similar to "dibbur" ["speech"]): If he said that he would give and he gave, he is rewarded for both the speech and the act. If he said that he would give, but did not get to do so, he is rewarded for the speech. If he did not say that he would give but he told others to give, or if he did not say that he would give and did not tell others to give, but comforted him (the pauper) with kind words — Whence is it derived that he is rewarded for this? From "For in consequence of this thing the L-rd your G-d will bless you in all of your deeds."

(Devarim 15:11) "for a poor man will not cease from the midst of the land": And elsewhere it is written (Ibid. 4) "But, there shall not be in you a poor man." How are these two verses to be reconciled? When you do the will of the L-rd, the poor will be in others (i.e., the gentiles); but when you do not do the will of the L-rd, the poor will be in you.

"Therefore, I command you, saying": I give you goodly counsel, for your benefit: "Open shall you open your hand...give shall you give."

"to your brother, your poor one, and your pauper in your land.": Why are all of these mentioned? Scripture apprises us: One whom it befits to give a loaf, give a loaf; one whom it befits to give dough, give dough; one whom it befits to give money, give money; one whom it befits to be fed, feed him.

(Ibid. 12) "If there be sold, to you, etc.": Whence is it derived that if you buy (a servant), you should buy only a Hebrew servant? From (Shemoth 21:2) "When you buy a Hebrew man-servant." Whence is it derived that if he sells himself, he should sell himself only to you? From (Vayikra 25:39) "And if your brother grows poor with you and he is sold to you…" Whence is it derived that if beth-din sells him, he is sold only to you? From (Ibid. 12) "If there be sold to you (by beth-din, for his theft) your brother …"

"the Hebrew man or the Hebrew woman": Why are (both of) these mentioned? For there obtains with the first what does not obtain with the second, and with the second, what does not obtain with the first. The Hebrew man-servant leaves (his master) with (the lapse of six) years, Yovel, and deduction of money (from the time he has served) — which does not obtain with the Hebrew maid-servant. The Hebrew maid-servant leaves with signs (of puberty), and is not sold and re-sold, and is redeemed perforce — which does not obtain with the Hebrew man-servant. So that since there obtains with the first what does not obtain with the second, and with the second what does not obtain with the first, both must be mentioned.

"then he shall serve you": — and not your heir. I might think, not even your son; it is, therefore, written (Shemoth 21:2) "Six years shall he serve" (implying that he does serve your son). And why do you see fit to include the son and to exclude the heir (i.e., the daughter)? I include the son for he stands in place of his father for yeidah (living with his father's handmaid), and for (acquiring his) field of holding (viz. Vayikra 25:25), and I exclude the daughter, who does not.

If he ran away and returned, whence do I derive that he completes his (six) years (of service)? From "then he shall serve you six years." I might think that if he took sick and recovered he makes up for his days of idleness; it is, therefore, written "and in the seventh year you shall send him free from you."

(Devarim 15:13) "And when you send him free from yourself … (14) Bestow shall you bestow upon him …" I might think that the bestowal obtains only with one who lives after six years. Whence do we derive (that it similarly obtains) with one who leaves in Yovel, or upon the master's death, (in the instance of) a Hebrew maid-servant, with signs of puberty? From (the redundancy [12]) "you shall send him … And when you send him." "And when you send him": I might think that the bestowal obtains also with one who leaves by a monetary deduction (from his remaining years of service); it is, therefore, written "And when you send him free from yourself": (The bestowal obtains) with one whose being sent away is from yourself, and not from himself (i.e., from his own devices). (Ibid. 14).

"Bestow shall you bestow upon him": and not upon his heirs.

"from your flock, from your threshing floor, and from your winepress": I might think, only from these; it is, therefore, written "wherewith the L-rd has blessed you" — to include all things. If so, why is it written "from your flock, from your threshing floor, and from your winepress"? Just as these are distinct in being fit for "blessing" (i.e., fruitfulness), ("bestowal" obtains with all such things) — to exclude money, which is not fit for blessing. These are the words of R. Shimon. R. Eliezer says: to exclude mules, which do not bear.

"wherewith the L-rd your G-d has blessed you shall you give him": I might think that if the house were blessed because of him he receives the bestowal; and if not, he does not. It is, therefore, written "Bestow shall you bestow upon him" — in any event. If so, what is the intent of "wherewith the L-rd your G-d has blessed you shall you give him"? The bestowal is in proportion to the blessing.

(Devarim 15:15) "And you shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt": I bestowed upon you (the spoils of Egypt upon your leaving Egypt), and again (at the splitting of the sea) — so, you bestow upon him (once) and then, again. Just as in Egypt I bestowed upon you with a lavish hand, so, you. And thus is it written (Psalms 68:14) "Even for those of you who lie among the sheepfolds, there are wings of a dove sheathed in silver" — the spoils of Egypt. "and its pinions of fine gold" — the spoils of the sea. (Song of Songs 1:11). "Wreaths of gold shall we make for you" — the spoils of the sea; "with spangles of silver" — the spoils of Egypt.

(Devarim, Ibid.) "Therefore, I command you in respect to this thing this day" (followed by the ear-boring ceremony [Ibid. 16 and 17]) — The boring of the ear is performed in the daytime and not at night.

(Devarim 15:16) "And it shall be, if he say to you: I shall not leave": I might think (that he says this) one time; it is, therefore, written (Shemoth 21:5) "And if the slave say, will say" — He must say it and repeat it.

If he said it in the midst of the six years, but not at the end, his ear is not bored, it being written (Ibid.) "I shall not go out free" — It must be said at the time of going out. If he said it at the end of the six years, but not in their midst, his ear is not bored, it being written "And if the slave say, will say" — It must be said when he is a slave.

(Ibid. 15:16) "because he loves you and your household": His saying (Shemoth, Ibid.) "I love my master, my wife, and my children" apprises us that his ear is not bored unless he has a wife and children. Whence is it derived (that his ear is not bored) unless his master has a wife and children? From "because he loves you and your household." From here it was ruled: If he had a wife and children and his master did not, or if his master had a wife and children and he did not, his ear is not bored. If his master loved him, but he did not love his master, his ear is not bored, it being written (Shemoth, Ibid.) "I love my master." If he loved his master, but his master did not love him, his ear is not bored, it being written (Devarim, Ibid.) "because it is good for him with you."

If he or his master took ill, his ear is not bored, it being written "because it is good for him."

(Devarim 15:17) "Then you shall take the awl and place it": Whence is it derived that also valid for this purpose are thorn, glass, and reed haulm? From "then you shall take" (anything that lends itself to "taking." These are the words of R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah. Rebbi says: Just as an awl is distinct in being of metal, so all that are of metal (may be used).

R. Eliezer Yuden Berebbi was wont to expound: The boring is done only in the ear-lap. R. Meir says: in the helix. For a Cohein is not bored in that this would render him "blemished," and if boring were in the ear-lap, how would he be rendered blemished thereby? We are hereby taught that boring is only in the height of the ear.

"his ear": It is written here "his ear," and, elsewhere (in respect to a leper) (Vayikra 14:14) "his ear." Just as there, the right ear (is specified), so, here, the right ear (is intended).

"in his ear": I might think, at the side of his ear; it is, therefore, written (Devarim 15:17) "in his ear and the door," whereby we are apprised that he pierces his ear (with the top of the awl) until it reaches the door.

"and he shall be unto you a servant forever" — the "forever" of Yovel. — But, perhaps, "forever" literally! — It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 25:10) "And each one of you will return to his holding" (at the Yovel). Why, then, is it written "a servant forever"? For I might think that (after his ear is bored) he serves only six years, so that his end (i.e., the end of his servitude) not be graver than his beginning; it is, therefore, written "a servant 'forever'" — even thirty years, even forty, until the Yovel. "and he shall be unto you a servant forever," and, elsewhere, (Vayikra 21:5) "and he shall serve him forever" — not his son and not his daughter — whence it is ruled: A Hebrew man-servant serves the son, but not the daughter. One whose ear was bored and one who was sold to a gentile serves neither the son nor the daughter. Whence is it derived that what is stated here (Devarim) applies there (Vayikra), and what is stated there applies here? From "forever" (Devarim 15:17) - "forever" (Vayikra 21:5), for an identity (gezeirah shavah).

"and to your maid-servant, too, shall you do thus": to bestow. I might think, also to bore the ear; it is, therefore, written (Shemoth 21:5) "And if the man-servant say, etc." The man-servant, and not the maid-servant.

"It should not be difficult in your eyes to send him away... for double the wages of a hired worker he has labored for you": From here it was taught that a hired worker works by day while a hebrew slave works both by day and by night.

"And the L-rd you G-d will bless you": I might think even if you sit idle? Therefore the verse continues: "in all that you do".

(Devarim 15:19) "Every firstling (bechor)": Scripture apprises us that a bechor is to be eaten (by the Cohein) all of its (first) year. This tells me only of an unblemished bechor. Whence do I derive (the same for) a blemished one (that cannot be sacrificed)? From "every bechor." From "You shall not work with the bechor of your bullock, etc." we are taught that it is forbidden to shear or to work with a bechor. This tells me only of an unblemished bechor. Whence do I derive (the same for) a blemished one? From "every bechor."

"in your cattle and in your sheep": From "You shall not work with the bechor of your bullock, and you shall not shear the bechor or your flock," we learn that it is forbidden to shear and to work with a bechor. This tells me only of a bechor. Whence do I derive (the same for) other offerings? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If a bechor, which does not obtain with all births, and which becomes chullin (non-consecrated) without redemption, may not be shorn or worked with, then all other offerings, which do obtain with all births, and which do not become chullin without redemption — how much more so should it be forbidden to shear them or to work with them!— No, (this can be refuted, viz.:) this may be true of a bechor, whose holiness is from the womb, and whose holiness is upon it (even) if it is permanently blemished.

Would you say the same for other offerings, where the above do not obtain? It must, therefore, be written "in your cattle and in your sheep you shall consecrate" (i.e., you shall not shear or work with other offerings).

R. Yishmael says: One verse (ours) says: "You shall consecrate," and another, (Vayikra 27:26) "you shall not consecrate"! You can consecrate it (a bechor) for its valuation to Temple maintenance; but you cannot consecrate it (as a different offering) to the altar. This tells me only of a bechor. Whence do I derive (the same for) all the offerings?

From "in your cattle and in your sheep … you shall consecrate." Or, something which you learn as obtaining with one thing, you may learn as obtaining with all (similar) things, viz.: Just as a bechor is distinct in being a lower-order offering, and it is eaten for two days, and applies to cattle and sheep — so, (this obtains with) all that are thus characterized (i.e., with lower-order offerings).

And whence do I derive (the same [i.e., that it is forbidden to shear or work with them]) for (other offerings which also obtain with cattle and sheep, such as) holy of holies, and individual and communal lower-order offerings? From "in your cattle and in your sheep … you shall consecrate." I might think that this (that they may not be shorn or worked with) applies also to consecrations for Temple maintenance; it is, therefore, written (Devarim 15:19) "the bechor."

Was bechor not included in all offerings? Why was it thus singled out? To teach: Just as bechor is distinct in being an altar offering, etc. — to exclude Temple maintenance consecrations, which are not altar offerings.

"You shall not work with the bechor of your bullock, and you shall not shear the bechor of your flock": R. Yehudah says: You may not work with the bechor of your bullock, but you may work with one (held in partnership) by you and others (i.e., gentiles, such animals not being subject to the law of the first-born.) "and you shall not shear the bechor of your flock": But you may shear one (held in partnership) by you and others. R. Shimon says: "You shall not work with the bechor of your bullock," but you may work with the first-born of a human being. "and you shall not shear the bechor of your flock," but you may shear the firstling of an ass.

This tells me only of the bechor of a bullock (as being forbidden) for work, and the bechor of a sheep, for shearing. Whence do I derive (the same for) the reverse? It is derived a fortiori: If a blemished bullock, which is not equivalent to an unblemished bullock to be sacrificed on the altar, is equivalent to it (to be forbidden) for work, then an unblemished sheep, which is equivalent to an unblemished bullock to be sacrificed on the altar, how much more so should it be equivalent to it (to be forbidden) for work!

And the same for shearing, viz.: If a blemished sheep, which is not equivalent to an unblemished sheep to be sacrificed on the altar, is equivalent to it (to be forbidden) for shearing, then an unblemished bullock, which is equivalent to an unblemished sheep to be sacrificed on the altar, how much more so should it be equivalent to it (to be forbidden) for shearing! But, still, we have derived the rule for unblemished (animals).

Whence do we derive the same for blemished ones? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If an unblemished sheep, which is not equivalent to a blemished sheep, to be eaten outside of Jerusalem, is equivalent to it (to be forbidden) for shearing, then a blemished bullock, which is equivalent to a blemished sheep to be eaten outside of Jerusalem, how much more so should it be equivalent to it (to be forbidden) for shearing!

(Devarim 15:20) "Before the L-rd your G-d shall you eat it, year by year": We are hereby taught that a bechor is eaten for two days — one day in this year, and one day in the next year.

(Devarim 15:20) "And if there be in it a blemish": This tells me only of an animal that was born unblemished and became blemished. Whence do I derive (the same for) one that was born blemished! From "every blemish." Whence do we derive (the same for animals that are) scrofulous, warty, scabbied, old, sick, or malodorous?

From "every." I might think that they could be slaughtered (and eaten) outside Jerusalem; it is, therefore, written "lame or blind': "lame" and "blind" were in the category (of blemished animals). Why did they leave that category (for special mention)? To make them the basis for a comparison, viz.: Just as "lame" and "blind" are distinct in being external blemishes, which do not heal, so, all (blemishes which render a bechor subject to slaughtering and eating outside Jerusalem) must be of that kind.

(Devarim 16:1) "Observe the month of Aviv": Observe the month close to Aviv, so that aviv (the springtide) fall out in its proper time.

I might think that if the year were lacking fourteen or fifteen days, you should add that number of days to it; it is, therefore, written "the month," and not less....

I might think that if it were lacking forty or fifty days, you should add that number of days to it; it is, therefore, written "the month" — not less and not more.

(Devarim 16:1) "Observe the month of Aviv": In three places the section of festivals is mentioned: In Vayikra, because of their order;

We are hereby apprised that Moses heard the order of the festivals on Sinai, repeated it to Israel, and repeated it again at the time of their occurrence,

Moses telling them: Take care to study these things and to expound them.

(Devarim 16:1) "And you shall make the Pesach (offering)": Its "making" must be to that end. If he offered it not in its name, it is invalid.

I might think that this also applies to its roasting and rinsing; it is, therefore, written (Ibid. 2) "And you shall slaughter a Pesach": Slaughtering was in the general category (of "making"). Why did it leave (that category for special mention)? To serve as the basis for a comparison, viz.: Just as slaughtering is expressly for the (altar) service, so all such "makings" (must be specifically to the end of "Pesach"), to exclude those (like roasting and rinsing) which are not altar-oriented.

"for in the month of Aviv": a propitious month, one which is neither too hot nor too cold. And thus is it written (Psalms 68:7) "G-d settles (the scattered) individuals (of Israel) in a (single) house (i.e., a united congregation). He releases the prisoners (from Egypt) in an equable (month" [neither too hot nor too cold]).

"the L-rd your G-d took you out of Egypt at night": Now did they leave at night? Did they not leave in the daytime, as it is written (Bamidbar 33:3) "On the morrow of the Pesach the children of Israel went out, etc."? We are hereby taught that the redemption began in the evening.

(Devarim 16:2) "And you shall slaughter a Pesach": Its slaughtering must be in the name of Pesach; otherwise, it is unfit.

This tells me only of its slaughtering. Whence do I derive the same for the receiving of its blood and the sprinkling of the blood? From (1) "and you shall make the Pesach."

I might think to include ("in the name of Pesach") the burning of its fats; it is, therefore, written "and you shall slaughter."

Slaughtering was in the general category (of "making"). Why was it singled out (for special mention)? To serve as a basis for comparison, viz.: Just as slaughtering is distinct in being categorically required for atonement, so, all that is so required (is included) — to exclude the burning of the fats, which is not thus required.

"sheep and cattle": Does the Paschal offering not come from lambs and kids? If so, why "sheep and cattle"? Sheep for the Pesach offering and cattle for the festive offering (chagigah), and to compare all that comes from sheep and cattle to the Pesach, viz.: Just as Pesach is a mandatory offering and comes only from chullin (non-consecrated) animals, so all mandatory offerings must come from chullin.

"in the place that the L-rd your G-d shall choose to repose His name there": Shiloh and the Temple.

(Devarim 16:3) "You shall not eat upon it chametz": R. Yehudah says: Whence is it derived that if one eats chametz (on Pesach eve) from the sixth hour on he transgresses a negative commandment? From "You shall not eat upon it (i.e., from the time of the sacrifice of the Paschal offering, [from the sixth hour on]) chametz."

R. Shimon said: Is this so? (i.e., Is this the derivation?) Is it not written "You shall not eat upon it chametz" — "seven days shall you eat upon it matzoth"? Whoever is subsumed in "eat matzoh" is subsumed in "You shall not eat chametz" and whoever is not subsumed in "eat matzoh" is not subsumed in "You shall not eat chametz."

"the bread of affliction": to exclude chalut (a paste stirred in hot water) and pan-cakes.

I might think that one could fulfill his obligation (of "bread of affliction") only with flour of the second course; it is, therefore, written "You shall eat matzoth upon it" — even the (extra fine) matzoh of King Solomon. If so, why is it written "bread of affliction"? To exclude chalut and pan-cakes.

R. Shimon says: Why is it called "bread of affliction"? Because of the affliction that they suffered in Egypt.

"For in haste did you leave the land of Egypt.": I might think the haste of both Israel and Egypt. It is, therefore, written (Shemoth 11:7) "And against all the children of Israel a dog shall not sharpen its tongue" — Say, then, it was only Egypt that was in haste.

"so that you remember the days of your leaving the land of Egypt": This is as R. Elazar b. Azaryah said: I am like one who is seventy years old, and I did not merit reciting the exodus from Egypt at night (in the blessing after the Shema) until Ben Zoma expounded "so that you remember your leaving the land of Egypt all the days of your life." "the days of your life" — the days; "all the days of your life" — the nights. The sages say: "the days of your life" — this world; "all the days of your life" — including the days of the Messiah.

(Devarim 16:4) "And there shall not be seen unto you leaven in all of your border for seven days": "yours" you may not see, but you may see that of others (gentiles) and that of the Temple (i.e., if there were chametz of the Temple in his house, he is not in transgression of "there shall not be seen unto you.")

"shall not be seen unto you": Do not see it as being yours, but void it in your heart — whence they ruled: "If one were on his way (on the fourteenth of Nissan) to slaughter his Pesach offering, or to circumcise his son, or to eat the betrothal feast in the house of his father-in-law, and he remembered that he had chametz in his house — if he can return (home) and burn it and return to his mitzvah, he should do so; if not, he should void it in his heart.

"and there shall not be seen unto you leaven": This is the difference between Beth Hillel and Beth Shammai: Beth Shammai say: Leaven (is forbidden) in (the size of) an olive, and chametz in (the size of) a date (less than an olive). Beth Hillel say: Both in (the size of) an olive.

"and there shall not remain of the flesh that you sacrifice in the evening on the first day until the morning": Which offering do you sacrifice in order to eat it in the evening? This is the chagigah (the festive offering), which is eaten together with the Pesach.

"in the first day until the morning": the morning of the second day.

(Devarim 16:5) "You may not sacrifice the Pesach offering in one …": R. Yehudah says: Whence is it derived that the Pesach is not slaughtered for one (eater)? From "You may not sacrifice the Pesach offering in one."

R. Yossi says: Sometimes he is one and they slaughter it for him, and sometimes they are ten, and they do not slaughter it for him. How so? If he is one and he can eat it (i.e., the whole thing), they slaughter it for him. If they are ten and cannot eat it, they do not slaughter it for them, in order not to render the Pesach invalid (by remaining beyond its allotted time for complete consumption.)

R. Elazar b. Mattia says: Because we find that the congregation brings the Pesach in a state of tumah (uncleanliness) when the majority are unclean, I might think that one (individual) could tip the scales to tumah; it is, therefore, written "You may not sacrifice the Pesach offering by means of one."