לזכות אבי מורי ואמי מורתי שליט"א 

לזכות ידיד נפשי הרב חיים שרעק וכל ב"ב 

לזכות ידיד נפשי הרב איתן פלדמן שליט"א וכל ב"ב

Says the pasuk [Vayikra 19-33]

"וְכִי יָגוּר אִתְּךָ גֵּר בְּאַרְצְכֶם לֹא תוֹנוּ אֹתוֹ"

If a stranger lives as a foreigner with you in your land, you shall not hurt him.

Rashi:

לא תונו אותו – אונאת דברים, לא תאמר לו: אמש היתה עובד עבודה זרה, עכשיו אתה בא ללמוד תורה שניתנה מפי הגבורה.

[AND IF A STRANGER LIVES WITH YOU IN YOUR LAND], YOU SHALL NOT VEX HIM – This implies vexing him with words (cf. Rashi on Exodus 22:20) — do not say to him, "Yesterday you were an idolator and now you come to study the Torah which was given from the mouth of the Almighty!" (Sifra, Kedoshim, Chapter 8 2; Bava Metzia 58b, 59b.)

This idea was stated in the Gemara [Bava Metzia 58b] on the pasuk in Behar [25-17] "ולא תונו איש את עמיתו". The Gemara says that this is talking about אונאת דברים and explains that one may not say to a convert who comes to learn Torah that "a mouth that ate neveilos and treifos is now coming to learn Torah that was given by Hashem?!" But based on what Rashi says here that idea was already expressed by the pasuk here so how why would the Torah repeat itself if we already learned it here? 

However, if you look carefully you will see that Rashi here is saying differently than the Gemara based on the later pasuk. There the issue is that the mouth that ate unkosher should learn a holy Torah given by Hashem. Here the issue is not the mouth and the כלים used to learn but rather the very learning Torah that has no place with someone who previously served idols. Therefore the Gemara based itself on the pasuk in Behar and not on the pasuk here. 

But that itself needs understanding - how do we know that the pasuk HERE is talking about telling someone that he previously served idols and now is coming to learn Torah and not the pasuk in Behar?

We also have to understand the pasuk here. How do we know that the pasuk is talking about learning Torah and not just to tell him that he was an idol worshipper. That is quite offensive in and of itself!?? Where is the הכרח [necessity] to say that we are talking about learning Torah? 

What needs even more understanding is that in Rashi's source here in Toras Kohanim it doesn't say anything about learning Torah that came from Hashem but that you shouldn't say to him that yesterday he he served idols and now he is entering under he wings of the שכינה and the topic of Talmud Torah is not even mentioned?? So what compelled Rashi to say that the means to tell us that the vexation is that he is now coming to learn Torah??! A פלא!!

We also have to understand what it says here "וכי יגור אתך גר בארצכם". The pasuk opnes with "אתך" which is לשון יחיד and then concludes "בארצכם" which is לשון רבים?! [See Alshich, Ohr Hachaim and Malbim]. The Alshich also asks why the pasuk has to say "וכי יגור אתך גר" - "'when a Ger lives with you". Why was it not enough to say "וכי יהיה גר בארצכם" - When there is a Ger in your land"? The Gemara expounds the pasuk but we want to know according to פשוטו של מקרא. 

We can answer as follows: If you examine the issue carefully you will see that Geirus brings the Ger into 3 new and different areas. 

1] He is part of the Chosen People and not a member of another nation like he was before. So he is both part of the Jewish Family and also attains Kedushas Yisrael. [Rav Naftoali Trop most famously taught (כתובות י"א) that there is a possible scenario where a Ger would be part of the Jewish family while still lacking Kedushas Yisrael].

2] He has all the rights and privileges of Jews including the Halachic "Law of Return" allowing him to live in Eretz Yisrael. He don't have an individual, ancestral portion but still has a general right to live there. In the future, he will even have their own portion, as the psukim in Yechezkel teach [47/21-23. See Mishna La-melech Bikkurim 4-3]. 

3] He may now learn Torah as opposed to גויים who may not.  

Now the pasuk reads beautifully: 

"וכי יגור אתך" - He will live WITH YOU. He is a member in good standing of our Jewish family.

"בארצכם" - He now has a right to live in your Land. 

We also understand why the pasuk opened with לשון יחיד and says "אתך" and concluded with לשון רבים saying "בארצכם". He is indeed a personal member of the family of every Jew. אתך. But when it comes to the Land he lacks a personal portion but just has a GENERAL portion in the Land. בארצכם. Plural. Together with everybody else. 

Now we can understand what compelled Rashi to explain the pasuk as he did. When it says "אתך" and "בארצכם" it is not telling us a place or time but defining the acceptance of the Ger in our midst. We are accepting him אתך - as part of our family and בארצכם - as one who has rights to the land. [That answers the Alshiach;'s question why it had to say "אתך" - to show that he received from us the right to be part of our family]. On this reality the Torah warns us  - לא תונו אותו. Don't vex him and cause him pain. How would one do that? Well the pasuk already alludes to two of the aspects of Geirus so all that is left is the third - Talmud Torah. He may now learn like a full fledged Jew. So Rashi HAD to explain that the אונאה referred to by the Toras Kohanim is about Talmud Torah, that one shouldn't say to a Ger that yesterday he was serving idols and today he is coming to learn Torah??! So it was פשוטו של מקרא that compelled Rashi to explain as he did.

This will clarify the two variant explanations of Rashi. In Behar the issue is to cause the Ger pain in a more general way. Telling him that the mouth that ate treif is now learning Torah?! Or telling him [as the Gemara says] to remember his earlier deeds. "Remember when you smoked weed in college?" "Remember you non-Jewish girlfriend?" And if he is suffering telling him "hey dude, you have a LOT of Aveiros for which to atone". Those are all more generic forms of emotional torment. 

Here we are talking about "פסלing the Gavra", telling him that he is not worthy of the rights accrued by born Jews. The pasuk alluded to his rights to be a member in good standing of our Jewish family and to live in Eretz Yisrael tipping us off to the fact that the torment is that he is not fully worthy of the right of born Jews which could only be Talmud Torah [because that is the only right not mentioned by the pasuk. So the other rights he has "אתך" "בארצכם" and we are telling him that the right to learn he doesn't have.] So we don't mention the mouth, the כלי of Talmud Torah as being unworthy [as in Behar], but the very fact that he is learning at all.

It emerges then that the איסור of tormenting a Ger here is different than the איסור of אונאת הגר elsewhere [in Bava Metzia 59b it says that it was prohibited in 36 places and some say 46]. Elsewhere, it refers to the essential hurt caused to the Ger just as it is forbidden to hurt the feelings of any Jew. There is an added איסור when it comes to a Ger either because he is liable to revert back to his previous lifestyle [סורו רע] or because [as the Rambam says] he is especially sensitive. Here however it refers to a unique case of hurting the Ger by relating to him in such a way that makes him feel that he isn't a Jew in good standing. This is a different category of anguish. 

With this we can understand what it says here in פסוק ל"ד:

כְּאֶזְרָ֣ח מִכֶּם֩ יִהְיֶ֨ה לָכֶ֜ם הַגֵּ֣ר׀ הַגָּ֣ר אִתְּכֶ֗ם וְאָהַבְתָּ֥ לוֹ֙ כָּמ֔וֹךָ כִּֽי־גֵרִ֥ים הֱיִיתֶ֖ם בְּאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרָ֑יִם אֲנִ֖י יְהֹוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶֽם׃

The stranger who lives as a foreigner with you shall be to you as the native-born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you lived as foreigners in the land of Egypt. I am Hashem your God.

Rashi says: 

"מום שבך אל תאמר לחברך".

"A blemish you have don't tell to your friend".

This is hard to understand. Is the din stated here a חיוב on this matter of מום שבך [a blemish that you have etc.] that we should say that for this reason it is forbidden to cause him pain and we are obligated in "כאזרח מכם"? The issue is that one may not cause a Ger pain! It has NOTHING TO DO with מום שבך? 

Also, the previous pasuk spoke about [according to Rashi] the fact that one should tell a Ger who is learning Torah that a person who served idols yesterday is learning Torah today?! What has that to do with this pasuk of "כאזרח כגר"? 

Based on what we said we can explain that פסוק ל"ד is telling us how to overcome the yetzer hara that there is to cause the Ger the anguish mentioned in פסוק ל"ג which is saying that he is inferior and has no right to learn Torah. The way to deal with this poisonous attitude is "כאזרח כגר" - view him as a native born Jew and not a stranger and in addition and love him as yourself. If you shift your perspective then you will be able to fulfill what it says in פסוק ל"ג. 

With this we can answer the question of the Alshich who asked that the words "הגר הגר אתכם" - the Ger living with you - are superfluous because we already know that we are talking about a Ger, as it says in the pasuk "כאזרח מכם יהיה לכם וכו' כי גרים" etc.  Based on what we said we can answer very well. This pasuk is advice how to fulfill what it says in פסוק כ"ג. There we are told about a Ger who is both אתך and בארצכם in Eretz Yisrael. So this pasuk continues with that line of thought and says that this Ger who is הגר הגר אתכם - He is both part of your family and living with you in Eretz Yisrael and in these areas is considered a kosher Jew and should ALSO be treated as a full fledged Jew vis a vis Talmud Torah. 

Now we can also understand the Rambam in the Sefer Hamitzvos [207] the Ya"d [Deos 6-4] and the Chinuch [431] who wrote that there is a special mitzvas aseh to love Geirim and they cite the pasuk in Eikev [10-19]: "ואהבתם את הגר כי גרים הייתם בארץ מצרים". Why don't they quote the pasuk here in Parshas Kedoshim that comes earlier? [The Avodas Hamelech in Deos 6-6 asks this question and notes that the Maharshal in his commentary on the Smag 'מצות עשה י quotes our pasuk here. but the Rambam and Chinuch don't. He remains with the question]. The answer is that our pasuk is not a mitzva per se to love the Ger but rather guiding us how to avoid the איסור of אונאה - by viewing the Ger as a pure bred Jew and loving him as we would ourselves [like every other Jew]. Only in Parshas Ekev is there an actual mitzva to love Geirm and therefore the Rambam and Chinuch quoted the later pasuk as the source for the mitzva. 

INTOXICATING! 

 When Rashi says "מום שבך אל תאמר לחברך" what he means is that if, for example, a person is corpulent, he wouldn't call his friend fat. It only calls attention to his own issue. So the pasuk is [as we explained] giving us guidance how not to afflict the Ger. You were Geirim in Mitzrayim so don't "chepper" him that he is a Ger, calling attention to your own problem. But more than that. When you were in Egypt, you weren't inferior. On the contrary - you were far superior to your evil Masters. [Example - The Nazis were infinitely inferior to the the Jews]. So just as you were Geirim and not  inferior, so are Geirim not inferior in any way. 

Now we can answer the question of the Alshich on the pasuk "כי גרים הייתם בארץ מצרים". He asked that these are two fundamentally different types of being a stranger. How can we compare a convert and our status as Geirim in Mitzrayim? Same word but totally different. The answer is that the common denominator is that neither type of Ger is inferior and THAT is the point of the pasuk. 

Then the pasuk concludes: "אני ה' א-להיכם" - meaning, I am EQUALLY your G-d. What is the value of a person if not for his importance in the eyes of Hashem. So the pasuk is asserting that a Ger is equally valuable as a Jew in G-d's eyes, so how can you cause him emotional pain??! This again guides us with the correct attitude that will prevent us from afflicting the Ger. 

Says the Gemara [Yevamos 46b-47b]:

ת"ר מי שבא ואמר גר אני יכול נקבלנו ת"ל אתך במוחזק לך בא ועדיו עמו מנין ת"ל (ויקרא יט, לג) וכי יגור אתך גר בארצכם

The Sages taught in a braisa: With regard to someone who came and said: I am a convert, one might have thought that we should accept him; therefore, the verse states: “And if a convert sojourns with you in your land, you shall not oppress him” (Leviticus 19:33). The emphasis on “with you” suggests that only someone who was already presumed by you to be a valid convert should be accepted as a convert. If he came and brought witnesses to his conversion with him, from where is it derived that he is to be accepted? It is from the beginning of that verse, which states: “And if a convert sojourns with you in your land [Rashi says that from the words וכי יגור we learn that no matter what we accept him if he brought witnesses].”

אין לי אלא בארץ בח"ל מנין תלמוד לומר אתך בכל מקום שאתך אם כן מה ת"ל בארץ בארץ צריך להביא ראיה בח"ל אין צריך להביא ראיה דברי ר' יהודה וחכמים אומרים בין בארץ בין בחוצה לארץ צריך להביא ראיה

I have derived only that a convert is accepted in Eretz Yisrael; from where do I derive that also outside of Eretz Yisrael he is to be accepted? The verse states “with you,” which indicates that in any place that he is with you, you should accept him. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: In the land? This indicates that in Eretz Yisrael he needs to bring evidence that he is a convert, but outside of Eretz Yisrael he does not need to bring evidence that he is a convert; rather, his claim is accepted [Rashi says that in E"Y he might lie in order to enjoy the benefits of the Land]. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: Whether he is in Eretz Yisrael or whether he is outside of Eretz Yisrael, he needs to bring evidence.

בא הוא ועדיו עמו קרא למה לי אמר רב ששת דאמרי שמענו שנתגייר בב"ד של פלוני סד"א לא ליהמנייהו קמ"ל

The Gemara analyzes the braisa: In the case when he came and brought witnesses to his conversion with him, why do I need a verse to teach that he is accepted? In all cases, the testimony of witnesses is fully relied upon. Rav Sheshes said: The case is where they say: We heard that he converted in the court of so-and-so, but they did not witness the actual conversion. And it is necessary to teach this because it could enter your mind to say that they should not be relied upon; therefore, the verse teaches us that they are relied upon.

So a huuuugeee chiddush emerges from this Gemara, namely that the pasuk teaches that the a testimony that is עד מפי עד [hearsay] and is not seen directly by the עד is accepted. The Rosh suggests that this is only according to R' Yehuda who is lenient and doesn't require proof in חו"ל, so he is similarly lenient here regarding עד מפי עד. But according to the Rabbis who say that he must bring proof in both א"י and חו"ל, we don't allow עד מפי עד. So writes the Tur [Yo"d 268]. The Beis Yosef also proves that the Rambam holds this way. 

However the Yam Shel Shlomo [4-47] and the Korban Nesanel and the Keren Orah all asked that this law of עד מפי עד being valid here is derived from the pasuk of כי יגור, so how can we say that the Rabbis argue? The YS"S and K"A do not resolve the issue. 

Based on the foregoing we can say as follows: The drasha of "אתך - במוחזק לך" is not just a regular drasha from the extra word "אתך" but is an outgrowth of the pshat of "אתך", which teaches that you should treat him as if he is one of you and not a stranger. But this is only if he is מוחזק as a Ger. If we don't know whether or not he is a Ger then he doesn't merit such special treatment. Now this must NOT be the opinion of R' Yehuda, who distinguishes between א"י and חו"ל based on the סברא that in א"י he is more likely to be lying that he is Jew, because as Rashi says he wants to partake of  the good of the Land. This only works if the issue is how believable he is. However we explained that the גזירת הכתוב of "אתך" is not about how much we can believe him but is a special din of "מוחזק לך" - if he is already presumed to be a Ger, only then is he אתך and a Ger, so how can there be a distinction between א"י and חו"ל? We have to say that according to R' Yehuda this ["אתך"] is only a drasha relating to his נאמנות. On this the Gemara wondered that if this is so, then why do we need a pasuk to teach us that he is believed with עדים - of course they are believed??! To that the Gemara answered that it is teaching us that even עד מפי עד works. 

But according to the Rabbis we can say that that they argue with R' Yehuda, even though he has a pasuk on his side ["וכי יגור"]. Because they hold that אתך is not about his נאמנות and therefore there is no distinction between א"י and חו"ל because bottom line, if in חו"ל he is not אתך [presumed to be a Ger], he can't be accepted as a Ger. So according to the Rabbis we need the pasuk of "כי יגור" to teach that עדים suffice to prove that he is a Ger despite the fact that he is not "אתך". Only according to R' Yehuda who says that the issue is נאמנות is the din that עדים are good enough superfluous. Of course עדים are believed!! So we have to be מחדש that even עד מפי עד is valid. But according to the Rabbis who require אתך - מוחזק לך, the fact that עדים are also enough to prove he is a Ger is a chiddush in and of itself and that is what the pasuk is teaching. But there is no proof that anything less than עדים is enough. THAT is what the Rosh meant when he said that only according to R' Yehuda who is lenient and holds that it is about proofs, reliability, נאמנות, we can say that he is believed in חו"ל based on סברא [that only in א"י he will lie to benefit from the land but not in חו"ל] and have a question why we would need a pasuk to teach us that he is believed with עדים. We know that עדים are the best נאמנות!? We answer that by saying that the pasuk is teaching us that even עד מפי עד is OK. But the Rabbis are מחמיר and the issue for them is "אתך" - is he מוחזק as a Ger or not, which means that there can't be a distinction between א"י and חו"ל. Hence, they need the pasuk to teach that proper עדות proves that he is a Ger [despite the fact that he is not אתך] and we have no source that less than this, i.e. עד מפי עד, is enough. 

That TOTALLY rocks!!!😊😊😊 

[עפ"י תורת מו"ר הגאון הגדול רבי ד"י מן זצ"ל]