Everything To Gain

Parshas Ki Seitzei is full of Mitzvos of every sort, with the Torah often discussing two very different Mitzvos in the span of as many Pessukim. But there is one single Passuk that discusses two separate Mitzvos that perhaps can be the source for a very important message.

The Torah tells us: “Lo Sateh Mishpat Ger Yasom”, which refers to an Issur to affect the judgement of a Ger or Yasom, in the very same Passuk as the Issur of “Lo Sachbol Begged Alamana”, which tells us that one is not allowed to take a Mashkon from an Almana.

At first glance, these two Halachos may seem only loosely connected in that they both relate to the way we are supposed to deal with those who may otherwise be considered second class citizens. If this were the case it would be curious that the Torah placed them in the same Passuk, and not in two different Pessukim—their inclusion in the same Passuk would seem to indicate a closer connection, which can perhaps be seen from the way the Meforshim explain the two Mitzvos.

First, it seems that the Mitzvah of “Lo Sateh Mishpat Ger Yasom” is somewhat repetitive: we are warned numerous times throughout the Torah about how we are to treat Almonos, Yesomim and Gerim. It is clear from those Pessukim that perverting judgment against a Ger or Yasom would be viewed as a very serious Aveirah. Rashi, adhering to the Derech HaPshat, explains that the Torah repeated itself in order to add an extra “Lav”, to increase the severity if one indeed alters the judgement of a Ger or Yasom.

The Ohr HaChaim Hakadosh takes a different approach, explaining that one may think that since we are Metzuveh to have Rachmanus on these individuals, it would be permissible to change the Din in their favor. Faced with a court case that involved a Ger, for example, on one side and another “regular” individual on the other side, the Dayan may feel that he is entitled, or even encouraged, to find in favor of the Yasom even if the Din is otherwise, as a form of “V’Ahavtem Es HaGer”. Therefore, the Torah tells us “Lo Sateh Mishpat Ger Yasom”, that Din must remain righteous regardless of the status of the litigants.

Thereafter the Torah adds the Mitzvah of “Lo Sachbol Begged Alamana” to reinforce the notion that we must treat the Almana, who is often trampled upon, with an added measure of dignity and care. Whereas one is permitted to take collateral on a loan in normal circumstances, when it comes to an Almana there we are told that we should refrain from doing so, for a variety of reasons explained in the Meforshim.

We see that, according to the Ohr HaChaim, there is a specific reason that the Torah put these two Mitzvos in the same Passuk: taken together they teach us an important lesson. When it comes to dealing with Almanos, Yesomim and Gerim, we must know that while we are encouraged to act with Rachmanos, ensuring not to mistreat them in any way, and even sometimes going “Lifnim Meshuras HaDin”, we must only do so within the confines of the Derech HaTorah. Though we may seek to help a Ger by altering the Din in his favor, we must know that this is not what the Torah wants from us.

Keeping in mind that this is the message of this Passuk, let us turn to the very next words in the Parsha: “V’Zacharta Ki Eved Hayisa B’Mitzrayim V’Yifdicha Hashem Elokcha Misham Al Ken Anochi Mitzavecha La’asos Es Hadavar HaZeh.” The Torah tells us that we must remember that we were once slaves in Mitzrayim and Hashem freed us, and therefore He gave us this Mitzvah.

Although this is a common idea found throughout the Torah, that we must remember Shibud and Yetzias Mitzrayim, the addition of the words “Al Ken Anochi Mitzavecha La’asos Es Hadavar HaZeh” is not common at all. The Torah does not often tell us that this is the reason for a Mitzvah: the words “Al Ken” seem to indicate that Yetzias Mitzrayim is itself the reason for these Mitzvos.

Rashi seems to address the connection between these Mitzvos and Yetzias Mitzrayim by explaining that when Hashem took us out of Mitzrayim it was conditional—we were taken out Al Tinai that we would keep Mitzvos even when there was financial loss involved.

This Rashi is very difficult to understand, for a few reasons.

First, these are not the only Mitzvos that may cost money. A look at the checkbook of a common Jew shows that the financial sacrifice of being Shomer Torah U’Mitzvos is quite significant, as we spend untold amounts of money on our Mitzvos. Why does the Torah choose these Mitzvos to inform us of this condition that was attached to Yetzias Mitzraim? The words “Al Ken” are such a strong and definitive statement about the reason for these Mitzvos, surely there must be a message for us.

In addition, R’ Yerucham Levovitz, in a short but insightful thought, discusses the underlying implications of Rashi’s words. He points out that according to Rashi, if Hashem had not made this Tenai, we would not have to do Mitzvos when it affected our finances. Only because of the conditions of Yetzias Mitzrayim are we Mechuyav to do Mitzvos when it causes us a financial loss. R’ Yerucham allows that this is indeed an earthshattering thought, which requires further development and explanation, but unfortunately does not expand in his writings. Indeed, this is a very pressing question: why would we not have to keep Mitzvos that caused “Chisaron Kis” if there had not been a Tenai?

If we think about it, however, the question can be asked in the reverse as well: how do we understand the Tenai in the first place? If, without the Tenai, we would not have to keep Mitzvos that caused financial loss, why did Hashem put this condition in place so that we would have to?

Perhaps we can explain these Pessukim and their message based on another set of Pessukim just a bit later in the Parsha. There the Torah tells us about the Mitzvah of Shikcha, leaving behind produce that was forgotten in the fields for the Aniyim to gather. This Mitzvah applies to all types of food, including grain, fruit of the tree and grapes and the Torah has a number of Pessukim delineating each Mitzvah.

Then, there is a Passuk that should be somewhat familiar: “V’Zacharta Ki Eved Hayisa B’Eretz Mitzrayim Al Ken Anochi Mitzavecha La’asos Es Hadavar HaZeh”. Again the Torah tells us that we must recall the Shibud Mitzraym, and “Al Ken Anochi Mitzavecha La’asos Es Hadavar HaZeh”, the Shibud itself is the reason for this Mitzvah. In contrast to the earlier Passuk, however, Yetzias Mitzrayim is not mentioned. Had the Pessukim been exactly the same we could understand that the Torah was once again telling us that we have the keep the Mitzvah of Shikcha, though it causes monetary loss, because of the Tenai made at Yetzias Mitzrayim. From the fact that the Torah leaves out any mention of Yetzias Mitzrayim, however, it appears that there is another explanation.

The Seforno explains that there is in fact a close connection between Shikcha and Shibud Mitzrayim. During their time as Avadim, when Bnei Yisroel were at the mercy of their masters and were given little to eat, they relied on produce that was left behind after the harvest for additional sustenance. Accordingly, when we ourselves have fields to harvest, we must take those who are less fortunate into account.

The words of the Seforno help us understand the connection between Shikcha and our Avdus in Mitzrayim, but the words “Al Ken” seems to require additional explanation. The Torah could have said “V’Zacharta Ki Eved Hayisa B’Eretz Mitzrayim” which would deliver the same message regarding the Mitzvah. The words “Al Ken Anochi Mitzavecha La’asos Es Hadavar HaZeh” seem to require further explanantion.

Perhaps, though, we can understand these words based on the words of the Sefer HaChinuch on this Mitzvah. The Chinuch explains that there is a twofold purpose for the Mtizvah of Shikcha: on one hand it is a way to alleviate the suffering of the Aniyim, as when they see all the landowners bringing in their bounty they will have a portion as well. This is perhaps a more obvious reason for the Mitzvah—to benefit Aniyim. The second reason, explains the Chinuch, is that it benefits the owner of the field. When a person leaves Matnos Aniyim it affects him and allows him to acquire a “Nefesh Tov”, upon which the Birchas Hashem will rest.

The Mitzvah of Shikcha, it turns out, is not only for the Aniyim, as one might expect. It benefits the owner as well, as it allows him to elevate himself and become a Kli Machzik Bracha.

Perhaps then the Passuk can be understood as follows: we are told that we should leave Shikcha in the field, and the Torah reminds us that we were once Avadim who relied on such findings. “Al Ken”, therefore, because we could relate to this Mitzvah, because we would be capable of fulfilling it, the Torah gave us the Mitzvah so that we could benefit from it.

The purpose of Mitzvos, we see, is not just to do the Ratzon Hashem, but for our own good. Therefore, when Hashem determined that something in our history as a people would enable us to do an action that would otherwise perhaps be difficult, he made it into a Mitzvah so that we could improve our own lot. The Mtizvah of Shikcha benefits the recipient, but it also holds much value for the giver, allosing him to acquire the Nefesh Tov and all that comes with it.

Perhaps this can help us understand the earlier Pessukim as well.

The Torah gives us the Mitzvos of “Lo Sateh” and “Lo Sachbol”, which can sometimes lead to a fiscal loss, and then it explains why we have these Mitzvos: “V’Zacharta Ki Eved Hayisa B’Mitzrayim V’Yifdicha Hashem Elokcha Misham.” We were taken out of Mitzrayim, at which time there was a Tnai made that we would keep Mitzvos even if they resulted in a Chisaron Kis. This is true of all Mitzvos, a potential or actual loss is almost never a reason not to do a Mitzvah, and indeed we spend money on many Mitzvos. But once this Tnai was in place, Hashm sought to be Mativ for us. “Al Ken Anochi Mitzavecha La’asos Es Hadavar HaZeh”: We were given extra Mitzvos, such as these, which would otherwise be impossible to do because they result in financial loss.

It is telling that the Chinuch explains the reason for the Mitzvah of “Lo Sachbol” from the perspective lender—he explains that having Rachmanus on the Almana will affect our lives and make us more compassionate people. This too is a Mitzvah that, despite its apparent costs, benefits us. But it was only because Hashem made this Tnai, requiring us to do Mitzvos even when they cost money, that such a Mitzvah was possible. The Torah therefore reinforces the idea of “Al Ken Anochi Mitzavecha La’asos Es Hadavar HaZeh.”

The message of these Pessukim is so clear. There are so many Mitzvos that are difficult to do. Some cost money, some are physically uncomfortable to perform, and some are just hard to relate to and understand. But we must always keep in mind that in the end the Mitzvos are for our own benefit—not just in terms of Schar and Onesh, but in terms of character development and, as we see in the case of Shikcha, material wealth as well.