From: Netvort@aol.com
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 2:03 AM
To: JoshHoff@aol.com
Subject: Netvort : parshas Emor, 5767


                                              
                                           Switching Categories
              
                    By Rabbi Joshua (categorically known as The Hoffer) Hoffman



  The latter part of parshas Emor consists largely of a presentation of laws of the various holidays of the year. However, in the middle of this section on the holidays, after the laws of Shavuos and before the laws of Rosh Hashana, we are told : "When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not remove completely the corner of your field as you reap and you shall not gather the gleanings of your harvest : for the poor and the proselyte shall you leave them : I am the Lord your God" (Vayikra 23:22). What is the reason for this apparent interruption in the section on the holidays? Rabbi Aharon Dovid Goldberg of Telshe Yeshiva in Cleveland, Ohio, in his Shiras  Dovid to parshas Emor, mentions several explanations, which I would like to present and expand upon.


  Rabbi Meir Simcha of Dvinsk, in his Meshech Chochma, suggests that the section on Shavuos is followed by the verse concerning leaving some of the crop for the poor to teach us that when the Torah was given on Shavuos, not only were the chukim, or laws that logic does not dictate, such as sha'atnez, given, but, mishpotim, which logic would dictate to be done, were also given, to teach us that fulfillment of these precepts also requires faith in God who gave us  these precepts in the torah. Although Rabbi Goldberg does not mention this, Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, zt"l, once pointed out that even though logic may dictate that it is wrong to murder, it cannot tell us what exactly constitutes murder. Partial birth abortion may be deemed murder by one person, and a woman's right to another. We need the Torah to tell us how to define these precepts. In terms of helping the poor man as well, then, we need the Torah to explain how to do this. 

  Another explanation brought by Rabbi Goldberg is that of Rashi, who cites a midrash which says that the laws of leaving over from the crop for the poor man are mentioned between the holidays of Pesach and Shavuos on one end and the laws of Yom Kippur and Sukkos on the other end to teach us that whoever leaves over from his crops for the poor man is considered as if he had built the Temple and brought sacrifices in it. Rabbi Goldberg explains that the deeper message being taught here is that, for a Jew, the mitzvos between man and God and those between man and his fellow man are integrally connected to each other, both having their basis in the command of God. The Torah does not differentiate between these two categories, and view one as based on the divine decree and the other based on human logic. Rather, all of the mitzvos find their basis in God's command. With Rabbi Goldberg's explanation of Rashi's comment in mind, we can go on to a third interpretation he brings, that of the Ramban, and expand on it in a way which Rabbi Goldberg does not mention.


  Ramban writes that the reason the Torah mentions the obligation to leave some of the crop for the poor person is to teach us that the positive mitzvoh of bringing the Omer does not push aside the prohibition of taking certain left-over potions of the crop and not leaving them for the poor man. Usually, we have a principle that when a positive commandment clashes with a prohibition, the positive commandment pushes aside the prohibition, and we proceed to perform the mitzvoh. However, the Torah here teaches us that in this instance we do not follow this principle. Why not? Although Rabbi Goldberg brings an explanation from Rabbi Shalom Shapiro of Telshe Yeshiva in Cleveland, and Rabbi Shimon Shkop, zt"l of RIETS in Manhattan, this explanation was given earlier by Rabbi Chaim Elazar Waks in his work Nefesh Chayah. He writes there that the Ramban is telling us that the principle of a positive commandment pushing aside a prohibition applies only to mitzvos between man and God, but not to mitzvos between man and man. This idea needed to be taught here, apparently, because according to the midrash cited by Rashi, we are also taught here that both categories of mitzvos come from the same source, namely, the command of God. Within that context, it is important to pint out that there is, still, a halachic difference between the two categories, as the Ramban teaches us.

  Although Rabbi Goldberg understands the distinction between the two categories of mitzvos as being a pure' gezeiras hakasuv,' or decree of God for which we have no explanation, perhaps we can suggest a reason for it. Ramban in his commentary to parshas Yisro explains that the reason a positive commandment generally overrides a negative one is because a positive commandment is based on love of God, while a negative command is based on fear, and love of God is on a higher level than fear of God. All of this, however, is understandable when we are dealing purely with our relationship with God. However, when it comes to our relationship with man, our primary concern should be to see to it that the rights and needs of our fellow man should be respected, before we concern ourselves with the wider implications of these commands for our religious development. For this reason, the Torah tells us to leave over part of the crop for the poor man, and not to reap it in order to bring the offering of the Omer. 



  Please address all correspondence to the author (Rabbi Hoffman) with the following address - JoshHoff @ AOL.com.

  To subscribe to Netvort, send a message with subject line subscribe, to Netvort@aol.com. To unsubscribe, send message with subject line unsubscribe, to the same address.


**************************************
See what's free at http://www.aol.com.