Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Musar for Pesachim 44:15

ואלא השתא דכתיבי הנך קראי לכם למה לי לכדתניא לכם לרבות את הנטוע

Subsequently<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'until'.');"><sup>28</sup></span> R'Akiba came and taught:Thou shalt fear[eth] the Lord thy God is to include scholars.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who are the depositaries of God's word; hence the verse exhorts obedience to religious authority.');"><sup>29</sup></span> But there is 'orlah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. Glos.');"><sup>30</sup></span> whereof the Merciful One saith, Three years shall it be forbidden unto you: it shall not be eaten;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 23.');"><sup>31</sup></span> yet it was taught: 'It shall be as forbidden unto you: it shall not be eaten'. [Thus] I only know the prohibition of eating; whence do we know that a man may not benefit from it, that he may not dye or light a lamp with it? From the verse, then ye shall count [the fruit thereof] as forbidden: [three years shall they be] as forbidden [unto you]: it sh not be eaten;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 23.');"><sup>31</sup></span> which is to include all of them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the repetition of 'forbidden' is an extension.');"><sup>32</sup></span> Thus the reason is that Scripture wrote, 'then ye shall count the fruit thereof as forbidden. they shall be as forbidden; but if it were not so,I would say, it implies a prohibition of eating, [but] it does not imply a prohibition of benefit? - In truth 'it shall not be eaten' implies both a prohibition of eating and a prohibition of benefit, but there it is different, because it is written, 'unto you', and thus it is necessary: I might argue, since it is written, 'unto you,' [that implies] it shall be yours;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' viz., you may use it, though not eat it.');"><sup>33</sup></span> hence we are informed [that it is not so]. Then now that these verses<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Repeating the phrase 'forbidden' to extend the prohibition to general benefit.');"><sup>34</sup></span> are written, what is the purpose of 'unto you'? - For what was taught: 'unto you': this is to include what is planted

Shenei Luchot HaBerit

שאו את ראש . The word את is difficult, as well as other apparently superfluous words. Even if we allow for the fact that Shimon Ha'Amsuni explained every את in the Torah and when he was stymied by one particular את in the verse "et hashem elokecha tira,” he abandoned his attempt altogether (compare Pesachim 22b). The fact remains that we have to explain whatever we can. Rabbi Akiva explained also the one et that had stymied Shimon Ha-amsuni by saying that not only G–d but also Torah scholars must be shown reverence (Bechorot 6). Another difficulty is that when counting the Israelites, the word את appears in front of the word כל, i.e. Numbers 1,2, שאו את ראש כל עדת בני ישראל, thereby joining the Israelites to the previous "אהל מועד", whereas when the Levites are counted in 3,15, the word כל appears after the object of the count, the בני לוי. It says viz: פקוד את בני לוי לבית אבותם למשפחותם, כל זכר וגו', instead of as in 1,2, שאו את ראש כל עדת בני ישראל. Still another unusual inconsistency is found when we compare the respective counts of the Kehatites, Gersonides and Merarites. The Torah writes in 4,2: "נשא את ראש בני קהת," and in 4,21 we read: "נשא את ראש בני גרשון," whereas in 4,29, we read: בני מררי למשפחותם, לבית אבום תפקוד אותם, without the word את. Why this change in the wording? Nonetheless, the word את, is mentioned also with מררי, in 4,30: כל הבא לצבא לעבוד את עבודת אהל מועד. On the other hand when the Torah describes the function of the Kehatites in 4,3, it says: כל בא לצבא לעשות מלאכה באהל מועד." Strangely, the word את is missing here. When the function of the Gersonides is discussed in 4,23, the word את is also missing.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Previous VerseFull ChapterNext Verse