POINT BY POINT OUTLINE
prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
1) BOTH LAVIN APPLY TO BOTH
(a) (Beraisa): "Es Kaspecha Lo Siten Lo b'Neshech uv'Marbis Lo Siten Ochlecha" - we find only Neshech regarding money, and only Tarbis regarding food;
(b) Question: What is the source that Neshech applies also to food?
(c) Answer #1: It says "Neshech Ochel."
(d) Question: What is the source that Tarbis applies also to money?
(e) Answer #1: We could have learned Neshech of money (regarding the borrower) had it said "Lo Tashich... (anything that bites)." "Neshech Kesef" is extra to teach Tarbis of money.
1. Question: These are written about the borrower. What is the source that the lender also transgresses Neshech of food and Tarbis of money?
2. Answer: We learn a Gezeirah Shavah "Neshech-Neshech" - just like regarding the borrower, both Lavim apply to both, also regarding the lender.
3. Question: What is the source to include everything else (as well as money and food)?
4. Answer: We learn from "Neshech Kol Davar Asher Yishach."
(f) Answer #2 (to questions (b) and (d) - Ravina): We already learn Neshech of food and Tarbis of money from "Es Kaspecha Lo Siten Lo b'Neshech uv'Marbis Lo Siten Ochlecha."
1. Indeed, had it said 'Es Kaspecha Lo Siten Lo b'Neshech v'Ochlecha b'Tarbis', we would need another source;
2. The verse reversed the order, in order that we expound "Es Kaspecha Lo Siten Lo b'Neshech uv'Marbis" (both apply to money), and "b'Neshech uv'Marbis Lo Siten Ochlecha" (both apply to food).
(g) Question: The Tana learns from a Gezeirah Shavah!
(h) Answer: The Tana teaches that had the verse not put Neshech and Tarbis next to each other, we could have learned from the Gezeirah Shavah;
1. Since Neshech and Tarbis are written next to each other, we do not need the Gezeirah Shavah.
(i) Question: What does the Gezeirah Shavah teach?
(j) Answer: It teaches that "Neshech Kol Davar Asher Yishach" (everything else) applies to the lender, for this was written only regarding the borrower.
2) THE LAVIM OF ROBBERY
(a) Question (Rava): Why must the Torah write Lavim forbidding Ribis, robbery and Ona'ah?
(b) Answer (Rava): It must teach all three:
1. Had it taught only Ribis, we could not learn to the others, for Ribis is a Chidush. The borrower is forbidden to give!
2. Had it taught only robbery, that which is (totally) against the will of the victim, we could not learn to Ona'ah, in which the victim (buys or sells) willingly.
3. Had it taught only Ona'ah, we could not learn to the others, for a victim of Ona'ah does not know he was cheated, so he cannot pardon it. Regarding the others, the victim can pardon his loss.
(c) Suggestion: We cannot learn the others from one. Perhaps we could learn one from the other two!
(d) Question: Which could we learn from the others?
1. We could not learn Ribis, for the victim willingly gives his money!
2. We could not learn Ona'ah, for one might have thought that it is normal to overcharge or undercharge in commerce;
(e) Answer: We could learn robbery.
1. We could not learn from Ribis (alone), because it is a Chidush. Ona'ah is not a Chidush, we can learn from it!
2. We could not learn from Ona'ah (alone), because the victim does not know he was cheated. We can learn from Ribis, in which the victim knows what he paid!
3. The stringency of each is unlike the stringency of the other. What is common to both is that he steals. We can learn to robbery!
(f) Question: If so, why did the Torah write a Lav regarding robbery?
(g) Answer: It forbids withholding wages.
(h) Question: There is a Lav for withholding wages - "Lo Sa'asok Sachir"!
(i) Answer: The Lav of robbery is a second Lav forbidding withholding wages.
(j) Question: We can say that it is a second Lav for Ribis and Ona'ah!
(k) Answer: We learn it from context. The Torah wrote it regarding a worker.
(l) Question: What do we learn from "Lo Signovu"?
(m) Answer (Beraisa): "Lo Signovu" one may not steal with intent to (give back, and in the interim) cause pain, or in order to pay Kefel.
3) FALSE WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
(a) Question (Rav Yemar): Why did the Torah need to write a Lav for (false) weights?
(b) Answer (Rav Ashi): This forbids putting one's weights in salt (Rashi - to make them heavier, to get more when buying; R. Tam - to make them lighter, to give less when selling).
(c) Objection: That is pure robbery, no extra verse is needed!
(d) Answer: One transgresses the Lav of weights from the time he puts them in salt, even before he uses them.
(e) (Beraisa): "Avel b'Mishpat b'Midah" refers to measuring land;
1. If land should be divided equally, one may not measure to one party in winter (Rashi - when the rope is moist and stretches out properly; R. Chananel - when the land contracts) and to the other party in summer.
2. "B'Mishkal" forbids putting one's weights in salt;
3. "Uva'Mesurah" - one who sells wine may not make it foam (to make it look like the buyer's Kli is full).
i. We may learn a Kal va'Chomer. Mesurah is a tiny measure, a 36th of a Log, yet the Torah warns about it. All the more so, one may not steal a larger measure!
(f) Question (Rava): Why does the Torah mention Yetzi'as Mitzrayim regarding Ribis, Tzitzis, and weights?
(g) Answer (Rava): Just like in Mitzrayim, Hash-m knew everyone's true father to kill the firstborns, Hash-m knows (and will punish) one who falsely claims that his money belongs to a non-Jew in order to lend it with Ribis, one who puts his weights in salt, and one who uses blue tree sap to (cheaply) feign the Mitzvah of putting threads dyed with Techeiles on the corners of his garment.
(h) Question (Rav Chanina of Sura): Why does the Torah mention Yetzi'as Mitzrayim regarding Sheratzim (vermin)?
(i) Answer (Ravina): Just like in Mitzrayim, Hash-m knew the fathers and killed the firstborns, Hash-m knows (and will punish) one who mixes innards of Tamei fish (mentioned in this Parshah) with those of Tahor fish and sells them to Yisrael.
(j) Question (Rav Chanina of Sura): My question was, why does the Torah say "ha'Ma'aleh" (who brings you up, from Mitzrayim) regarding Sheratzim?
(k) Answer (Ravina - Beraisa - Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael): The merit that Yisrael will not become Teme'im through Sheratzim sufficed for Hash-m to redeem them from Mitzrayim.
(l) Question: Is the reward for refraining from (eating) Sheratzim greater than that of refraining from Ribis and false weights and fulfilling Tzitzis?!
(m) Answer: Even though the reward is not greater, they are exceedingly disgusting to eat.
4) FIXED RIBIS
(a) (Mishnah): What is Tarbis? It is one who increases Peros. If Reuven bought a Kor of wheat...
(b) Question: Also the previous examples were Tarbis! (We concluded that every case of Neshech is Tarbis.)
(c) Answer (R. Avahu and Rava): The previous cases were Ribis mid'Oraisa. The coming cases are mid'Rabanan;
1. In the previous cases, "Yachin v'Tzadik Yilbash" (if the lender died, his heir may keep the Ribis).
2. Question: May we infer that in the later cases (mid'Rabanan Ribis), the heir must return it?!
3. Correction: Rather, even in the previous cases, the heir may keep it.
4. The previous cases are fixed Ribis. The coming cases are Avak (dust of) Ribis.
(d) (R. Elazar): Beis Din forces the lender to return fixed Ribis, but not Avak Ribis.
(e) (R. Yochanan): Beis Din does not force the lender to return even fixed Ribis.
(f) (Question: What is R. Yochanan's source?)
(g) Answer #1 (R. Yitzchak): "Ba'Neshech Nasan v'Tarbis Lokach va'Chai Lo Yichyeh" - he will die (b'Yedei Shamayim). It will not help to return the Ribis.
(h) Answer #2 (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): "...V'Yoresa me'Elokecha" - one returns Ribis because he fears Hash-m. Beis Din does not force him.
(i) Answer #3 (Rava): He learns from the end of the first verse "(Lo Yichyeh) Mos Yumas Damav Bo," This equates those who lend on Ribis are compared to murderers;
1. Just like one cannot undo murder, one cannot undo Ribis by returning it.