4

HaKesav VeHaKabbalah (Deuteronomy 10:12) writes:

והנה מצאנו בחמשה מקומות שדברה תורה ממצות שבין אדם לחברו שסיימה בהם ויראת מאלהיך, כמו אל תקלל חרש ויראת מאלהיך, מפני שיבה תקום ויראת מאלהיך, ולא תונו איש את עמיתו ויראת מאלהיך, אל תקח מאתו נשך ותרבית ויראת מאלהיך, לא תרדה בו בפרך ויראת מאלהיך, ובכל אלה ארז"ל כל מקום שיש בו חסרון כיס נאמר בו ויראת מאלהיך

Behold, we find in five places where the Torah speaks about mitzvos between man and his fellow, and it ends with וירת מאלקיך. Like we find by not to curse a deaf person, to stand before the elderly, not to hurt someone verbally, not to charge interest, and not to overwork our Hebrew servant. Regarding all of these our Rabbis said that every place that has a [potential] loss of money, it says ויראת מאלקיך

I couldn't find any source for this statement. I looked on Otzar HaChochmah and all I found was Kol Eliyahu (by Rav Eliyahu HaTzafarti, 18th century) end of parshas Emor says this regarding not charging interest.

Does anyone know which רז"ל statement he's referring to? I'm puzzled how the first three mitzvos he lists can be considered a loss of money, but before I ask that as a separate question I want to know who makes such a statement.

It's noteworthy that the Mosad HaRav Kook edition of HaKesav VeHaKabbalah, which cites everything he writes, doesn't provide a source for this statement he's quoting.

  • What are #1, #2, and #3? – DonielF Aug 23 at 18:42
  • A quick search on Sefaria reveals a few sources which explain ויראת מאלקיך as referring to anything given to one’s mindset, but nothing in Shas Bavli or Yerushalmi that explains it this way. – DonielF Aug 23 at 18:45
  • +1. But I recommend a different translation (or an English explanation) of "ארז״ל". "[O]ur Rabbis" includes Kol Eliyahu. – msh210 Aug 24 at 19:05
  • @msh210 what should I write? Sages usually means Chazal. Rabbis is more inclusive – robev Aug 25 at 4:51
  • I don't know what רז״ל means but you, apparently, do, since you say it excludes Kol Eliyahu. So you should I think include an explanation of what you think it means. – msh210 Aug 25 at 5:38
-2

Counter-answer

משנה תורה, הלכות תלמוד תורה ו׳:ב׳

אֵין עוֹמְדִין מִפָּנָיו לֹא בְּבֵית הַמֶּרְחָץ וְלֹא בְּבֵית הַכִּסֵּא שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יט לב) "תָּקוּם וְהָדַרְתָּ" קִימָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ הִדּוּר. וְאֵין בַּעֲלֵי אֻמָּנֻיּוֹת חַיָּבִין לַעֲמֹד מִפְּנֵי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁעוֹסְקִין בִּמְלַאכְתָּן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר תָּקוּם וְהָדַרְתָּ מַה הִדּוּר שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ חֶסְרוֹן כִּיס אַף קִימָה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ חֶסְרוֹן כִּיס. וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲצִים עֵינָיו מִן הֶחָכָם כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִרְאֵהוּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲמֹד מִפָּנָיו. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְיָרֵאתָ מֵּאֱלֹהֶיךָ. הָא כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא מָסוּר לַלֵּב נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ וְיָרֵאתָ מֵּאֱלֹהֶיךָ:

Mishneh Torah, Torah Study 6:2

There is no rising up in a bath house, nor in a lavatory, for it is said: "Thou shalt rise and honor", a rising up which is accompanied by honor. Working men are not obliged to rise up before the disciples of the wise, during their working hours, for it is said: "Thou shalt rise up and honor", even as doing honor does not cause a loss to the purse, so must the rising up be without loss to the purse. Whence do we know that one is forbidden to close his eyes at the approach of a wise man so as not to see him at the time when he is obligated to rise before him? From what it is said: "And thou shalt fear thy God" (Ibid.), herefrom we infer that of everything which belongs to one's heart, it is said: "And thou shalt fear thy God"

ויראת מאלוהיך Is about one's mindset/heart (@DonielF comment), not about חסרון כיס (money loss)

  • What?! downvote with no explanation, while this answer clearly nullifies the question?? – Alaychem Aug 25 at 12:19
  • The Rambam is just quoting Chazal. Who says his statement is to exclusion of the one I'm searching for? – robev Aug 25 at 13:35
  • @robev Please, read my answer again. The Rambam (right, quoting Chazal) clearly says that you consider חסרון כיס in a case covered by a pasuk saying 'ויראת מה אלוקיך, which means that Haktav veHakabala is WRONG in this case. – Alaychem Aug 25 at 13:45
  • maybe he's referring to someone who is self employed? But I agree the gemarra and sifra sound like there's zero loss of money with regards to standing up for someone. This doesn't answer my question though which is looking for a source, not if the statement makes sense. I mentioned at the end of my question I don't see how the first three mitzvos could ever cause a financial loss, so you didn't add anything. – robev Aug 25 at 13:59
  • Maybe I should make it more clear. It seems that you will not find source to the claim in your question, because it's wrong. About those first three mitzos, the second is discussed in my answer, the the third has obvious economical effect, the economy will look different if people will not mislead each other. – Alaychem Aug 26 at 5:27

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .