|
Dear Yeshiva Family:
Before we begin, I want to thank the loyal readers who have followed this Dvar Torah over the past two years. In year one, we focused on mussar and chizzuk; in year two, we shifted to longer lomdus and full chiddushim. I asked the oilam for feedback on the switch—baruch Hashem, many of you shared appreciative notes, even as I know we lost some readers along the way. My goal was to offer something you couldn't find elsewhere. Of course, every dvar mussar has immense value, but a good cheshbon—the kind of careful, yeshivish analysis you hear in the Beis Medrash—was what we aimed to bring each week. I won't hide that preparing that kind of reid was very time-consuming (a zechus I truly loved), and many weeks ran 2,000–3,000 words. With a new Elul zman beginning—fresh hasagos, genuine excitement, and a new limud in Yeshiva—I no longer think a weekly long-form dvar is feasible.
So, it's time to adjust styles again. Going forward, I plan to share shorter pieces: a concise vort, a kasha-teretz, a quick nekudah. Many weeks I'll simply highlight a relevant mareh makom—a classic Ramban, an Ibn Ezra, a Netziv—sometimes with minimal commentary, just "something good to know" as we enter Shabbos Kodesh.
As always, I invite and appreciate your feedback. I hope, b'ezras Hashem, to welcome back some of our earlier readership while continuing to learn and grow together.
------------------------------
In this week's parshah we're commanded to appoint dayanim (judges) and warned that a judge may not take shochad—bribery (Devarim 16:19). Ordinarily, a lav (Torah prohibition) with a concrete act carries a penalty of malkus (lashes). But by monetary lavim (such as stealing), Chazal teach: "lav hanitan l'tashlumin ein lokin alav"—when the Torah provides a monetary remedy (returning what was taken), there are no lashes. So too here: the judge must return the bribe, and therefore is exempt from malkus.
The Minchas Chinuch (Mitzvah 83) raises a sharp question: if the exemption from lashes is because the judge can return the bribe, what if the bribe was worth less than a shaveh perutah—the smallest halachic coin? Such an item has no monetary standing in halacha and cannot be returned in the classic sense. By stealing, that very scenario creates an act that cannot be undone, and the thief would indeed be chayav malkus. So why by shochad don't we say: since it cannot be returned, the judge should now get lashes?
Perhaps we can explain (and I later found that a similar explanation is offered by Rav Chaim Pinchas in his sefer Mishmeres Chaim). By theft (gezeilah), the mitzvah of "returning what you stole" (hashavas gezelah) is a monetary obligation—you must pay back the money or object as money. Since something less than a perutah cannot create a halachic monetary transaction (kinyan), the thief has no way to fulfill that mitzvah of repayment. That is why by stealing where restitution is impossible, the exemption from malkus does not apply.
Shochad (bribery) is different. There is no separate mitzvah of "paying back" as with theft. Rather, because the giving itself was never permitted, what must be undone is the influence—the sense of indebtedness or bias—that the bribe created. The moment the judge physically returns the item, even if it was worth less than a perutah and never halachically counted as "money," the improper influence is erased. Even though there is no debt created that must be returned, the influence is what must be returned and that can be returned. In other words, here "return" is not a new mitzvah of repayment, it is simply undoing the crime: "I no longer feel beholden, the gift is back in your hands."
That kind of undoing is enough to classify shochad as a prohibition that is remedied through return, and therefore it does not generate lashes—even with a sub-perutah bribe. What a beautiful chiddush.
Have an amazing Shabbos Kodesh!
Rabbi Moshe Revah Rosh HaYeshiva mrevah2@touro.edu
| 
No comments:
Post a Comment